children’s centres strategy proposal centres 2012...childminder or nanny, for example: “i am a...

Appendix 1

Report written September 2012

Children’s Centres Strategy Proposal

Consultation Findings: Stakeholder Survey

Gary Wilson Consultation Officer Royal Borough of Kensington and Chelsea 020 7361 3616 [email protected]

Summary

Children’s Centres Strategy Consultation: Stakeholder Survey 1

Summary of Results Introduction As part of the wider consultation on the Children’s Centres Strategy Proposal the Council’s Media and Communications Team put together a leaflet summarising the proposals for the Children’s Centre Strategy. Accompanying the leaflet was a survey seeking feedback on the proposals, testing the range of services on offer and looking for other ideas and suggestions. The survey was primarily aimed at users of the children’s centres, but could also be completed by staff or other professional users of children’s centres. The survey had a freepost facility to enable easy return and boxes were placed in each of the children’s centres to enable users to drop them off. A link to the survey was also promoted via the Council’s website. A total of 193 completed questionnaires were received. Use of children's centres The majority (94 per cent) of respondents to the survey had used a children's centre in the past 12 months. The majority of respondents either used children's centres every day (42 per cent) or two to four times a week (36 per cent). The services most used by respondents were:

• Childcare and crèche services (65 per cent) • ‘Stay and Play’ sessions (54 per cent) • Children’s library services (27 per cent) • Health visiting (22 per cent)

Children’s centre services The majority of respondents agreed that the services on offer are of a high quality (90 per cent) and that they were satisfied with the range of services on offer (86 per cent). Half of respondents agreed that services are effectively targeted at the most disadvantaged families (50 per cent) and that with less money available, services should be carefully targeted to reach the families that need them most (49 per cent). However, over a quarter (26 per cent) disagreed that services should be targeted to reach the families that need them most. There were mixed views on whether it was reasonable to charge for some services where people can afford to pay, with 44 per cent agreeing and 27 per cent disagreeing with the statement. From a list of services respondents were asked to select three services which they felt were the most important in meeting the needs of the most vulnerable in the borough. Respondents most selected services were:

• Childcare services and crèche (71 per cent) • ‘Stay and Play’ sessions (51 per cent) • Family outreach and parenting support (36 per cent) • Health visiting (27 per cent)

Summary


Nearly two-thirds (63 per cent) of respondents felt that the Council should continue to fund additional provision of services where another organisation is the main provider (e.g. health visiting and employment support). A fifth (21 per cent) were against the Council doing this. When asked to suggest additional services the Council could offer, and how services could be delivered differently, more childcare places and reducing duplication were the top answers; respondents also suggested making more use of volunteers. Reorganising children's centres Almost half (48 per cent) of respondents indicated that they were against moving to the suggested model (one hub linked to other centres in the north and one hub linked to other centres in the south of the borough); just over a fifth (22 per cent) were in favour. When asked why respondents were not in favour top concerns were:

• A decline in quality (11 comments) • More information needed (11 comments) • The impact on satellite centres (nine comments).

Childcare in the borough’s children's centres Two-thirds (67 per cent) of respondents were against the proposal to undertake a commissioning exercise to look for childcare providers in the private or voluntary sector to manage childcare in the future. Parents that were against the proposal were asked to explain why this was. The themes with the most comments were:

• Fee increases and the impact of fee increases (56 comments) • Quality concerns (50 comments) • Staff continuity/quality (23 comments)

Over three-quarters (78 per cent) of respondents agreed that free spaces should continue to be available to the most disadvantaged children in the borough and the majority (84 per cent) felt that support should be offered to low income working families. There were mixed views on whether those that can afford to pay should be charged the going rate, with 41 per cent agreeing and 27 per cent disagreeing with the statement. For more information For information on the results please contact Gary Wilson, Consultation Officer on 020 7361 3616 or e-mail on [email protected]

Introduction


Introduction

This report contains the findings from the children’s centres stakeholder survey, designed to gather feedback on the Council’s proposed Children’s Centre Strategy. The survey was part of a wider consultation exercise to gather feedback from stakeholders, activities included:

• Stakeholder survey (distributed via the children’s centres and available online) • Residents’ Panel survey • Service User events • Practitioner event

Background to the strategy The Council as a whole has lost about £22 million from its budget in just two years alone (2010/11 to 2011/12) and there is more to come. Children’s centres are being asked to contribute about £800,000 in savings. Such a saving won’t be achieved without major reorganisation and it is against this background that the Council has devised its children’s centre strategy.

Key features of the strategy At the heart of the strategy is the fact that the Council needs to ensure the Council’s limited resources support the most vulnerable families in the community. The key features are as follows:

• No children’s centres will close • There will be a place for every child in need • Children’s centres will continue to offer high quality services and services for the most

disadvantaged families will be preserved • Low income families will be cushioned from the financial impact • A new structure will simplify management and reduce management costs • The Ofsted inspection burden will be dramatically reduced • The Council will no longer provide the childcare element of children’s centres directly but

instead rely on private and voluntary sector partners with proven capacity to provide a high quality service

• Royal Borough residents will have an Early Years Service that is comparatively more generous than elsewhere in the capital.

Objectives Therefore the overall objectives of the consultation exercise were:

• To consult key stakeholders on the proposed draft strategy (including feedback on the proposed hub and satellite model and potential changes to childcare provision).

• To generate feedback on the range of services offered in the borough’s children’s centres.

• To give opportunity for suggestions of alternative ideas of how services could be delivered or alternative ideas for savings.

Introduction


Stakeholder survey - methodology As part of the wider consultation on the Children’s Centres Strategy Proposal the Council’s Media and Communications Team put together a leaflet summarising the proposals for the Children’s Centre Strategy. Accompanying the leaflet was a survey seeking feedback on the proposals, testing the range of services on offer and looking for other ideas and suggestions. The survey was primarily aimed at users of the children’s centres, but could also be completed by staff or other professional users of children’s centres. The survey had a freepost facility to enable easy return and boxes were placed in each of the children’s centres to enable users to drop them off. A link to the survey was also promoted via the Council’s website. A total of 193 completed questionnaires were received. Figures shown in graphs are percentages, where figures do not total 100 per cent this may be to computer rounding or due to respondents being able to provide more than one answer to a question. Full data tables of results can be seen in appendix 1. For More information For information on the results please contact Gary Wilson, Consultation and Research Officer on 020 7361 3616 or e-mail on [email protected]

Demographics


Demographic information Respondents were asked a series of questions about themselves. Stakeholder Respondents were asked on what basis they were responding to the consultation. The majority (81 per cent) of respondents were users of children's centres. In addition seven per cent of respondents were residents that did not use the children's centres and the same percentage of responses were received from people that work in a Royal Borough children's centre. Nine respondents indicated ‘other’ answers, including three that indicated they were a childminder or nanny, for example:

“I am a childminder in the borough.”

All ‘other’ responses can be seen in appendix 2.

Graph shows percentages for the 193 responding to this survey

Gender The majority (83 per cent) of respondents were female, with one in ten (11 per cent) of responses coming from males.


5%

2%

7%

7%

81%

0% 20% 40% 60% 80% 100%

No reply

Other

I work in a Royal Borough children's centre

I am a resident of the borough, but not a current user of children's centres

I use the Royal Borough's children's centres

Which of the following options best describes you?

6%

83%

11%

0% 10% 20% 30% 40% 50% 60% 70% 80% 90%

No reply

Female

Male

Gender

Demographics


Age Two-thirds (66 per cent) of respondents were aged between 30 and 44 years old. A total of 13 per cent of respondents were aged between 20 and 29 years old and one in ten (11 per cent) were aged between 45 and 59 years old.


Household income A fifth (21 per cent) of respondents indicated that their household income was £16,000 or below. One in ten (11 per cent) reported their household income as being between £16,001 and £26,000 and slightly more (14 per cent) indicated their household income was between £26,001 and £36,000. Nearly one in ten (nine per cent) indicated that their household income was above £56,000. However, almost a quarter (24 per cent) preferred not to say what their household income was.


6%

0%

1%

11%

66%

13%

2%

0% 10% 20% 30% 40% 50% 60% 70%

No reply

75 or over

60 ‐ 74

45 ‐ 59

30 ‐ 44

20 ‐ 29

Under 20

Age group

11%

24%

9%

5%

5%

14%

11%

21%

0% 5% 10% 15% 20% 25% 30%

No reply

Prefer not to say

£56,001 or above

£46,001 to £56,000

£36001 to £46,000

£26,001 to £36,000

£16,001 to £26,000

Up to £16,000

Household income

Demographics


Ethnicity Half of respondents (50 per cent) indicated they were from a White background, whilst four in ten (39 per cent) indicated they came from a black or minority ethnic background.


Disability Almost one in ten (nine per cent) of respondents indicated that they had a disability.


11%

39%

50%

0% 10% 20% 30% 40% 50% 60%

No reply

Black or Minority Ethnic background

White background

Ethnicity

11%

80%

9%

0% 10% 20% 30% 40% 50% 60% 70% 80% 90%

No reply

No

Yes

Do you have any long term illness, health problems or disability which limits your daily activities?

Results: Use of Children’s Centres


Use of Children’s Centres Respondents were asked a series of questions about their use of children's centres in the borough. Frequency of use The vast majority (94 per cent) of respondents indicated that they had used a children's centres in the last 12 months. Just five per cent of respondents indicated that they had not.


The majority of respondents either used children's centres every day (42 per cent) or two to four times a week (36 per cent). Eight per cent of respondents use children's centres once a week and a total of eight per cent use children's centres less frequently than this.


2%

0%

5%

94%

0% 20% 40% 60% 80% 100%

No reply

Don't know/can't remember

No

Yes

Have you used a children's centre in the Royal Borough of Kensington and Chelsea in the last 12 months?

7%

2%

1%

2%

3%

8%

36%

42%

0% 10% 20% 30% 40% 50%

No reply

Less frequently

Quarterly

Monthly

Once a fortnight

Once a week

Two to four times a week

Every day

How frequently do you use the services of children's centres in the borough?



Children’s centres used Respondents were asked to indicate which centres they use. Almost a third (32 per cent) of respondents use Golborne Children's Centre and a quarter (25 per cent) use Violet Melchett Children's Centre. Almost a fifth (18 per cent) of respondents use Maxilla Children's Centre and slightly less (15 per cent) use Cheyne Children's Centre.


9%

3%

11%

12%

12%

15%

18%

25%

32%

0% 5% 10% 15% 20% 25% 30% 35%

No reply

St. Cuthbert with St. Mathias CE Primary School and Earl's Court Children’s Centre

St Quintin Children’s Centre

Chelsea Open Air Nursery School and Children’s Centre

Cheyne Children’s Centre

Clare Gardens Children’s Centre

Maxilla Children’s Centre

Violet Melchett Children’s Centre

Golborne Children’s Centre with services at Holmfield House

Which children's centres do you use?



Services Used Respondents were asked to indicate which services they use in the children's centres. The most used services by respondents were:

• Childcare and crèche services (65 per cent) • ‘Stay and Play’ sessions (54 per cent) • Children’s library services (27 per cent) • Health visiting (22 per cent)


In addition 14 per cent of respondents indicated ‘other’ services that they use. Answers have been themed in the table below, with full responses in appendix 2.

Theme of comment Number Theme of comment Number Day care/childcare 10 Family learning 1Baby yoga/yoga 4 First aid course 1Travel Club 3 Nail course 1Childminder's drop in 2 Other 1Music 2 Play Hut 1Baby massage 1 Playgroup 1Baby on waiting list 1 Post Natal group 1Break 4 you 1 Rhyme time 1Breakfast clubs 1 Staff 1Breastfeeding Cafe 1 Workshops 1Day courses 1

7%

14%

7%

13%

14%

16%

18%

22%

27%

54%

65%

0% 20% 40% 60% 80%

No reply

Other

Training to support people back to work

Midwifery

Speech and language therapy

Family outreach and parenting support

Enjoy and achieve programme

Health visiting

Children's library services

Stay and play sessions

Childrcare services and creche

Which children's centre services do you use?

Results: Children’s Centre Services


Children’s centre services Respondents were asked to indicate how strongly they agreed or disagreed with a series of statements about the services provided by children's centres in the borough. Range of services on offer The majority (86 per cent) of respondents agreed that they were satisfied with the range of services on offer, this included 55 per cent of respondents who strongly agreed with the statement. However, five per cent disagreed and the same percentage responded neutrally.


Quality of services Nine in ten (90 per cent) respondents agreed that services on offer were of a high quality, this included 57 per cent of respondents who strongly agreed that this was the case. Just two per cent of respondents disagreed and six per cent responded neutrally.


Charging for services A total of 44 per cent of respondents agreed that it was reasonable to charge for some services where people can afford to pay. However, over a quarter (27 per cent) disagreed that this should be the case and a further fifth (19 per cent) responded neutrally.


86% 5% 5%

1%

4%

0% 20% 40% 60% 80% 100%

I am satisfied with the range of services on offer

Strongly agree/agree Neither agree nor disagree Strongly disagree/disagreeDon't know or N/A No Reply

90% 6%2%

1%

3%

0% 20% 40% 60% 80% 100%

Services on offer are of a high quality


44% 19% 27%

3%

8%

0% 20% 40% 60% 80% 100%

It is reasonable to charge for some services, where people can afford

to pay




Targeting services Half (50 per cent) of respondents agreed that services are effectively targeted at the most disadvantaged families. However, over a quarter (28 per cent) responded neutrally and nearly one in ten (nine per cent) did not know. Five per cent of respondents also disagreed that services are effectively targeted. Almost half (49 per cent) of respondents agreed that with less money available services should be carefully targeted to reach families who need them most. However, over a quarter (26 per cent) disagreed that this should be the case and a further 16 per cent responded neutrally to the statement.


Meeting the needs of the most vulnerable From a list of services respondents were asked to select three services which were the most important in meeting the needs of the most vulnerable in the borough. Respondents most selected services were:

• Childcare services and crèche (71 per cent) • ‘Stay and Play’ sessions (51 per cent) • Family outreach and parenting support (36 per cent) • Health visiting (27 per cent) • Speech and language therapy (19 per cent)

In addition eight per cent of respondents indicated ‘other’ services that they use. Answers have been themed in the table below, with full responses in appendix 2. Seven respondents felt all the services were important, for example:

“All of these are important they combine to create the service we need.”

Five respondents felt childcare was important, for example:

“Childcare services more than any other services enable low paid workers to stay employed.”

49%

50%

16%

28%

26%

5%

2%

9%

8%

7%

0% 20% 40% 60% 80% 100%

With less money available, services should be carefully targeted to

reach the families who need them most

Services are effectively targeted at the most disadvantaged families

Strongly agree/agree Neither agree nor disagree Strongly disagree/disagree

Don't know or N/A No Reply



Theme of comment Number Theme of comment Number All are important 7 Massage 1 Childcare 5 Meeting place 1 Speech therapy 2 Mental health services 1

Cannot comment 1 Services that can refer people on 1

Early year's education 1 Stay and Play 1 Family outreach 1 Weaning 1 Health and economic wellbeing 1 Yoga 1


8%

6%

12%

15%

15%

16%

19%

27%

36%

51%

71%

0% 20% 40% 60% 80%

No reply

Other

Children's library services

Enjoy and achieve programme

Midwifery

Training to support people back to work

Speech and language therapy

Health visiting

Family outreach and parenting support

Stay and play sessions

Childrcare services and creche

...which three of the following services do you think are the most important in meeting the needs of the most vulnerable in the borough?



Funding services provided elsewhere Nearly two-thirds (63 per cent) of respondents felt that the Council should continue to fund additional provision of services where another organisation is the main provider. However, a fifth (21 per cent) of respondents did not agree and 14 per cent did not know.


Additional services Respondents were invited to suggest other services they would like to see children's centres offer. Answers have been themed in the table below, with full responses in appendix 2. Seventeen respondents wanted to see childcare remain or more childcare offered, for example:

“If budgets are being cut I believe Council should focus on providing childcare services at most affordable cost they can.”

“Affordable childcare places increased.”

Six respondents felt that the Council should stop duplicating service, particularly of those that are provided elsewhere, for example:

“These services already exist, why repeat them at the cost of childcare. Families from all backgrounds are struggling to maintain housekeeping and returning to work. Daycare should be the priority.”

“These services should be funded through the primary agency. This seems to be a waste of early year's money that could support affordable day care.”

Five respondents commented positively on the services that are on offer, for example:

“The services are brilliant. They support my son's development needs and have given me the skills I needed to return back to work. Children's centres are truly supporting the every child matters ethos.”

“I am extremely happy with the child care that we receive at Golborne Children's Centre nursery. My child was identified as having some difficulties and the staff here were well aware of the other services available in the borough to help my family. They knew more than even my GP.”

3%

14%

21%

63%

0% 10% 20% 30% 40% 50% 60% 70%

No reply

Don't know

No

Yes

Currently the Council funds some services in its children's centres, for which other organisatiuons are the main provider. Should the Council continue to fund

additional provision of these services?



Four respondents suggested more focus on helping people back to work, for example:

“Higher level of 'helping people get back to work' as the training is aimed towards those that have minimum qualifications / skills or previous experience.”

Theme of comment* Number Theme of comment* Number

Childcare/more childcare 17 Support for single parents/vulnerable parents 3

Duplication of services/funded elsewhere 6 Arts 2 Positive comments about services 5 Health visitor/health checks 2 Employment support 4 Later childcare 2 Parenting support/courses 4 Literacy 2 Leave as is 3 Travel club 2 Stay and Play 3

* Themes shown with more than one comment against them Delivering services differently Respondents were invited to suggest ideas of how services could be delivered differently. Answers have been themed in the table below, with full responses in appendix 2.

Thirteen respondents suggested the use of volunteers, for example:

“In Kensington and Chelsea - I think there should be better use of volunteers I am a stay at home mum and I would be a volunteer.”

“Volunteers would be good but training would need to be provided.”

Nine respondents commented in favour of providing childcare, including providing extra provision, for example:

“Open more childcare places by using free rooms, hiring more staff, charging fee to cover service.”

Nine respondents wanted to see services that are offered elsewhere stopped or reduced, for example:

“Less money spent on health and other services and more Council run affordable daycare.”

“When I visit the health visitor/baby clinic, I go to Walmer Road (Colville) or my friends visit St. Charles. Why do the children's centres offer this?”

In addition seven respondents wanted to see non-essential services stopped or reduced, for example:

“I see a lot of wastage - nail courses being offered! This is not a necessity, we need affordable childcare to work - or would you prefer me on benefits?”

“Less money spent on fun courses, parents need affordable daycare and this is currently the best service. Losing this would affect my health, well being and economic wellbeing.”



Six respondents also felt duplication needed to be reduced, for example:

“There are many activities (stay and play, baby groups, etc.) which are provided in several centres - they could be streamlined, but extending capacity in the remaining centres so people don't lose out.”

Theme of comment Number Theme of comment Number Use volunteers 13 Do not use volunteers 3 Childcare 9 Hire out the venue 3 Stop/reduce services provided elsewhere 9 Diversity 2 Leave as is 7 Look at finances 2 Stop/reduce non-essential services 7 Make cuts to other services 2 Reduce duplication 6 Merging centres 2

Means testing 4 Positive comments about services 2

Charge more for childcare 3 * Themes shown with more than one comment against them

Results: Reorganising the Children’s Centres


Reorganising the children's centres Respondents were given the following information about how the proposed reorganisation of the children’s centres.

“The Council wants to ensure that all eight children's centres in the borough remain open. In order to do this the Council proposes to reconfigure the centres so that there is one ‘hub’, linked to other centres, in the north of the borough and one 'hub', linked to other centres, in the south of the borough. This would help the Council make the savings it needs to achieve. More details of the proposed strategy can be found in the accompanying leaflet 'A new way of delivering children's centre services'.”

Respondents were then asked to consider if they were in favour of moving to this new model. Over a fifth (22 per cent) of respondents were in favour of moving to this model. However, almost half (48 per cent) were against moving to this model and just over a quarter (26 per cent) did not know.


Other ideas and suggestions Those that were against moving to the model or had other ideas and suggestions of how to make savings were invited to comment. Answers have been themed in the table below, with full responses in appendix 2.

Eleven respondents were concerned that reorganisation would lead to a decline in quality, for example:

“I do not think you can manage the services remotely. I think the care and quality would be affected if this happened.”

“By linking the services through a 'hub' and having one or two annual Ofsted inspections will decrease the quality of the services. Each service should be inspected according to their quality.”

Eleven respondents felt that they hadn’t been given enough information on the model, for example:

“I don't think the model has really been clearly explained. It seems that management roles would be cut back - if this meant centres away from the hub would not have a manager on site, I think it is a bad idea.”

4%

26%

48%

22%

0% 10% 20% 30% 40% 50% 60%

No reply

Don't know

No, I am against moving to this model

Yes, I am in favour of this model

Reorganising the children's centres: Are you in favour of moving to this model?

Results: Reorganising the Children’s Centres


“I believe that the information provided in the leaflets is not sufficient for people to make an informed decision on whether the proposals are good or not. The way the proposed strategy is explained is too vague to show the real implications of the new setup suggested.”

Nine respondents were concerned about the impact of the model on satellite centres, for example:

“Am concerned 'hubs' will leave non 'hub' centres short staffed/underfunded due to loss in income from other activities.”

“The notion against closure is most likely not the most effective cost saving measure, unless satellite centre budgets are to be so reduced that they remain a centre in name only. If this is the case then the quality services that the Council prides itself on delivering are at risk of closure or falling into decline, as centres will not have the staff or resources to manage, deliver and oversee the range of provision that is currently on offer.”

Eight respondents suggested other savings or ways to raise funds, for example:

“I think the necessary savings can be achieved by creating other income streams such as renting the hall.”

“Fundraising events. Increasing the fees gradually.”

Eight respondents commented on the services on offer, including some that felt certain services could be reduced or stopped to save money, for example:

“As long as we continue to offer useful courses and help - why do we need DIY courses? Is this a wise way to spend money?”

Six respondents felt that the model would make children's centres difficult to manage, for example:

“I do not think you can manage the services remotely. I think the care and quality would be affected if this happened.”

Theme of comment* Number Theme of comment* Number Decline in quality 11 Leave as is 4 More information needed 11 Alternative hub suggested 4 Concerned about the impact on satellite centres 9

All centres should be Ofsted inspected 4

Other savings/fund raising suggestions 8

Positive comments about the centres/staff 4

Services on offer 8 Against the proposal 2 Model/centres will be difficult to manage 6 In favour of the model 2 Council can save on other services 5 Keep childcare services 2 Use volunteers 5 Keep individual centres 2

* Themes shown with more than one comment against them

Results: Other comments


Childcare in the borough’s children's centres Respondents were asked a series of questions about childcare in the borough’s children's centres. Model Respondents were given the following information about childcare in the borough’s children’s centres:

“Currently the Council provides full daycare in four of its children’s centres. The Council is proposing to undertake a commissioning exercise to look for childcare providers in the private or voluntary sector to manage childcare in the future.”

Respondents where then asked if they were in favour of moving to this model. Two-thirds (67 per cent) of respondents indicated that they were not in favour of undertaking a commissioning exercise to manage childcare in the future. Just over one in ten (12 per cent) were in favour and nearly a fifth (18 per cent) were undecided.


Reasons why respondents were against this model Those that were against the proposal were invited to explain why. Answers have been themed in the table below, with full responses in appendix 2. A total of 56 respondents were concerned about fee increases or commented on the impact of fee increases, for example:

“A private provider will charge more because they will be looking to maximise profits. When looking for childcare I found nannies unaffordable and private nurseries unaffordable.”

“I do not feel you would get value for money. Private providers are more expensive child carers, have less qualifications and are focused on making money rather than providing a quality service. Staff are usually under paid while service users are paying high rates for care provision.”

“I have a three year old and one year old twins there would be no way I could make it viable financially for me to go back to work should the fees go up.”

3%

18%

67%

12%

0% 20% 40% 60% 80%

No reply

Don't know

No, I am against moving to this model

Yes, I am in favour of this model

Childcare in children's centres: Are you in favour of moving to this model?



“The fees may be unaffordable for working parents who are already struggling to pay fees. I am guessing parents who are middle income earners will be the most affected as there is no statutory support for the top up of nursery fees.”

Almost as many respondents (50) commented on quality concerns, for example:

“Council childcare is affordable, safe, clean and of excellent standards. Private is expensive, not as good and has poorly trained staff/paid staff. Childcare was the only option for me and has increased me being able to leave my home, helped my child and enabled me to have better health. Keep daycare Council funded!”

“Golborne Children's Centre is an outstanding childcare provider, making it private will lower standards and raise costs for hardworking parents.”

“I would worry about the quality of childcare if another company were to come in and provide. I worry that currently the workforce are good and identifying and supporting those in most need and this may fail if another provider came in.”

“Private care is poor - staff are badly paid and this reflects in standards. If the Council cares about standards - don't do this! Private care is a business to make money. What you have on offer is the best daycare. Why not means test now? Why do we have to privatise this?”

A total of 23 respondents were concerned about staff continuity or the quality of future staff, for example:

“As parents, we need to know that our children are in safe hands and settled when they are away from us. I much prefer knowing that my child is being looked after by the same staff throughout the day, whom she knows, trusts and is comfortable with.”

“I don't trust private or voluntary service provider with care for my children. In my experience private or voluntary providers focus on profit/underpaid staff, cost cutting rather than wellbeing of my children.”

“We previously had our child in private sector nursery. It was not as good, personnel were less experienced and qualified. The food was a disgrace. Violet Melchett is far better, concentrates on child’s needs and development and healthy eating.”

Theme of comment* Number Theme of comment* Number Increase in fees/ impact of fee increases 56 Don't use volunteers 4 Quality concerns 50 Links to other services 3 Staff continuity/ quality 23 Accountability 2 Leave service as is 9 Means testing 2 Save money in other ways 7 More information needed 2 Diversity of children 4 Part time care 2




Childcare Respondents were given the following information about childcare in the borough’s children’s centres:

“The Council will no longer be able to subsidise every childcare place. We intend to continue to provide a free place for those children in need and offer support to low income working families. But the Royal Borough cannot continue to provide subsidised places to those who can afford to pay the going rate.”

Respondents were then asked to indicate how strongly they agreed or disagreed with a series of statements about childcare in the borough’s children’s centres. Most disadvantaged Over three-quarters (78 per cent) of respondents agreed that free spaces should continue to be available to the most disadvantaged in the borough, this included 58 per cent of respondents who strongly agreed that this should continue to be the case. However, eight per cent of respondents disagreed and a further eight per cent responded neutrally. Low income working families The majority (84 per cent) of respondents agreed that support should be offered to low income working families, this included 53 per cent of respondents who strongly agreed that this should be the case. However, five per cent of respondents disagreed and six per cent of respondents responded neutrally. Going rate A total of 41 per cent of respondents agreed that those that can afford to pay, should be charged the going rate. However, over a quarter (27 per cent) disagreed that this should be the case, including 14 per cent that strongly disagreed with the statement. A further fifth (21 per cent) responded neutrally.


41%

84%

78%

21%

6%

8%

27%

5%

8%

4%

1%

1%

7%

5%

4%

0% 20% 40% 60% 80% 100%

Those that can afford to pay should be charged the going rate

Support should be offered to low income working families

Free places should continue to be available to the most disadvantaged children in the

borough

Please indicate how strongly you agree or disagree with the following statements about childcare in the borough's children's centres




Other comments Respondents were given the opportunity to comment further on the proposals. Answers have been themed in the table below, with full responses in appendix 2. A total of 25 respondents were concerned about a possible increase in childcare fees, for example:

“Already increased the daily rate from £41 to £56. Huge jump and expense even to middle class family.”

“I am a working mum with my son attending nursery. Although on paper it may look like I am getting a good salary, I struggle and would be better off on benefits. Therefore I need nursery places to be subsidised.”

“It is very important that for the community, for most of working low or middle class families, for both parents to work in cities as expensive as London. If we can't have day care at these prices how are we going to be able to go back to work?”

A total of 13 respondents wanted more clarity around statements in the consultation (including 'those that can afford to pay', 'going rate', 'disadvantaged'), for example:

“How do you work out who can afford to pay and how much is the going rate? What is low income? Does it take into account large families and how affordable this is?”

“How do you calculate 'those who can afford' and what 'the going rate is'? Most people on even £30,000 a year can't afford full time childcare. So how do you penalise the lower - middle classes where there will be a generation of women unable to work because although they earn 'good' wages, they still can't afford childcare.”

Eight respondents commented that they were against the proposals, for example:

“I am strongly against these proposals as are all the parents I meet. The community doesn't want the changes and it goes against government policy regarding community. You will end up spending more in the future on the community.”

“When you have already made so many redundancies, why do you propose this move? I know you have the funds and you should utilise them.”

Seven respondents commented on the consultation process. These included views on when the consultation was undertaken, the amount of information given and questioned if respondents’ views would make a difference, for example:

“Will this consultation really listen to what we want? Will other options be considered? Will money stop being wasted on non essential courses and used on what parents need Council run/Council accountable daycare?”



“I think that the leaflets and information provided to us has been too vague and I think that the questions in this survey are also too vague and at times leading in the way that they are phrased (as well as the answer options). It is unfair to ask us to give you opinions if we are not given enough information to do so. I also think it is really important for the Council to offer high quality childcare educational services at an affordable cost. Finally I think it is also unfair to do such an important review of services and expect us to consider the information and respond during the summer holidays when it is harder for parents to have the time to do so.”

Theme of comment* Number Theme of comment* Number Increase in fees/impact of fee increases 25

Free places to the disadvantaged 3

Statements need defining – ( 'those that can afford to pay', 'going rate', 'disadvantaged') 13 Places for working families 3 Against the proposals 8 Diversity 2 Consultation 7 Information on charges 2 Unclear/more information needed 6 Means testing 2 Leave as is 5 Part time childcare 2 Positive comments about the centres, services or staff 5 Save money elsewhere 2 Prefer to pay more 5 Subsidy 2 Quality 4


Appendix 1: Data Tables


Data tables Q1 Have you used a children’s centre in the Royal Borough of Kensington and Chelsea in the past 12 months?

Yes 181 93.8% No 9 4.7% Don’t know/can’t remember 0 0.0% No reply 3 1.6% Total 193 100%

Q2 If yes, how frequently do you use the services of children’s centres in the borough?

Every day 80 41.5% Two to four times a week 69 35.8%

Once a week 15 7.8% Once a fortnight 6 3.1% Monthly 4 2.1% Quarterly 2 1.0% Less frequently 4 2.1% No reply 13 6.7% Total 193 100%

Q3 Which children’s centres do you use?

Violet Melchett Children's Centre 49 25.4% Cheyne Children's Centre 23 11.9% Chelsea Open Air Nursery School and Children's Centre

24 12.4%

St. Cuthbert and St Mathias CE Primary School and Earl’s Court Children's Centre

6 3.1%

St. Quintin Children's Centre 21 10.9%

Clare Gardens Children's Centre 28 14.5%

Maxilla Children's Centre 35 18.1% Golborne Children's Centre with services at Holmfield House

61 31.6%

No reply 17 8.8%



Q4 Which children’s centre services do you use?

Childcare services and crèche 126 65.3% Stay and play sessions for under fives 104 53.9% Family outreach and parenting support 31 16.1% Speech and language therapy 27 14.0% Health visiting 43 22.3% Midwifery 26 13.5% Enjoy and achieve programme 34 17.6% Children’s library services 52 26.9% Training to support people back to work 14 7.3%

Other 27 14.0% No reply 13 6.7%

Children’s centre services Q5 How strongly you agree or disagree with the following statements about services provided by children’s centres in the borough?

I am satisfied with the range of services on offer

Strongly agree 107 55.4% Agree 59 30.6% Neither agree nor disagree 9 4.7%

Disagree 7 3.6% Strongly disagree 2 1.0% Don’t know or N/A 2 1.0% No reply 7 3.6% Total 193 100%

Services on offer are of a high quality Strongly agree 109 56.5% Agree 63 32.6% Neither agree nor disagree 11 5.7% Disagree 3 1.6% Strongly disagree 0 0.0% Don’t know or N/A 1 0.5% No reply 6 3.1% Total 193 100%



Services are effectively targeted at the most disadvantaged families Strongly agree 46 23.8% Agree 51 26.4% Neither agree nor disagree 54 28.0%

Disagree 10 5.2% Strongly disagree 0 0.0% Don’t know or N/A 18 9.3% No reply 14 7.3% Total 193 100%

With less money available, services should be carefully targeted to reach the families who need them most Strongly agree 34 17.6% Agree 60 31.1% Neither agree nor disagree 31 16.1% Disagree 37 19.2% Strongly disagree 13 6.7% Don’t know or N/A 3 1.6% No reply 15 7.8% Total 193 100%

It is reasonable to charge for some services, where people can afford to pay Strongly agree 28 14.5% Agree 57 29.5% Neither agree nor disagree 36 18.7% Disagree 28 14.5% Strongly disagree 24 12.4% Don’t know or N/A 5 2.6% No reply 15 7.8% Total 193 100%



Q6 Children’s centres offer a wide range of services, which three of the following do you think are the most important in meeting the needs of the most vulnerable in the borough?

Childcare services and crèche 136 70.5% Stay and play sessions for under fives 98 50.8%

Family outreach and parenting support 69 35.8%

Speech and language therapy 36 18.7%

Health visiting 52 26.9% Midwifery 28 14.5% Enjoy and achieve programme 29 15.0% Children’s library services 24 12.4% Training to support people back to work 30 15.5%

Other 11 5.7% No reply 16 8.3%

Q7 Currently the Council funds some services in its children’s centres, e.g. health visiting, midwifery and employment support, for which other organisations are the main provider. Should the Council continue to fund additional provision for these services?

Yes 121 62.7% No 40 20.7% Don’t know 26 13.5% No reply 6 3.1% Total 193 100%

Reorganising the children’s centres

Q10 Are you in favour of moving to this model?

Yes 43 22.3% No 92 47.7% Don’t know 50 25.9% No reply 8 4.1% Total 193 100%

Childcare in the children's centres

Q12 Are you in favour of moving to this model? Yes 23 11.9% No 129 66.8% Don’t know 35 18.1% No reply 6 3.1% Total 193 100%



Q14 How strongly do you agree or disagree with the following statement about childcare in the borough’s children's centres Free spaces should continue to be available to the most disadvantaged children in the borough.

Strongly agree 111 57.5% Agree 40 20.7% Neither agree nor disagree 16 8.3%

Disagree 8 4.1% Strongly disagree 8 4.1% Don’t know 2 1.0% No reply 8 4.1% Total 193 100%

Support should be offered to low income working families

Strongly agree 102 52.8% Agree 61 31.6% Neither agree nor disagree 11 5.7% Disagree 5 2.6% Strongly disagree 4 2.1% Don’t know 1 0.5% No reply 9 4.7% Total 193 100%

Those that can afford to pay should be charged the going rate

Strongly agree 28 14.5% Agree 52 26.9% Neither agree nor disagree 40 20.7% Disagree 26 13.5% Strongly disagree 26 13.5% Don’t know 8 4.1% No reply 13 6.7% Total 193 100%



About you Q16 Which of the following options best describes you?

I use the Royal Borough’s children's centres

156 80.8%

I am a resident of the borough, but not a current user of the children's centres

14 7.3%

I work in a Royal Borough children's centres

13 6.7%

Other 3 1.6% No reply 9 4.7% Total 195 100%

Q18 Are you male or female?

Male 21 10.9% Female 160 82.9% No reply 12 6.2% Total 193 100%

Q19 Which age group are you in?

Under 20 4 2.1% 20 – 29 26 13.5% 30 – 44 127 65.8% 45 – 59 22 11.4% 60 – 74 2 1.0% Over 75 0 0.0% No reply 12 6.2% Total 193 100%

Q20 What is your approximate household income?

Up to £16,000 41 21.2% £16,001 to £26,000 21 10.9% £26,000 to £36,000 27 14.0% £36,001 to £46,000 10 5.2% £46,001 to £56,000 9 4.7% Over £56,001 17 8.8% Prefer not to say 47 24.4% No reply 21 10.9% Total 193 100%



Q21 How would you best describe your race or ethnic origin?

White – British 48 24.9% White – Irish 8 4.1% White – Other European 27 14.0%

Any other White background 14 7.3%

Black or Black British – Caribbean 13 6.7%

Black or Black British – African 12 6.2%

Black or Black British – Somali 4 2.1%

Any other Black background 4 2.1%

Asian or Asian British – African Indian 0 0.0%

Asian or Asian British – Indian 4 2.1%

Asian or Asian British – Pakistani 2 1.0% Asian or Asian British – Bangladeshi 1 0.5%

Any other Asian background 4 2.1%

Mixed – White and Black Caribbean 0 0.0%

Mixed – White and Black African 2 1.0%

Mixed – White and Asian 0 0.0%

Any other mixed background 8 4.1%

Any other background 21 10.9%

No reply 21 10.9% Total 193 100%

Q22 Do you have any long term illness, health problems or disability which limits your daily activities?

Yes 18 9.3% No 154 79.8% No Reply 21 10.9% Total 193 100%

Q23 If yes, what is the nature of your impairment? (percentage of those with a disability). Physical impairment 5 27.8%

Mobility impairment 3 16.7%

Hearing impairment 1 5.6% Visual impairment 2 11.1%

Learning difficulty 2 11.1%

Mental Health 4 22.2%

Other, e.g. hidden impairment (diabetes, epilepsy)

5 27.8%

Appendix 2: Comments


Other responses to: ‘Which of the following best describes you?’ Childminder/nanny

• I am a childminder in the borough. • I use the children's centres as I am a childminder. • I'm a nanny.

Also live in the borough

• I also live in this borough. Also work in the centre

• I work in a Royal Borough children's centre also.

Another job in education • Other job in education.

Child attends a children’s centre

• My son attends St. Quintin's Children’s Centre.

All categories • All of the above - I teach Fit buggy classes through the centres.

Child is on waiting list

• I am on the waiting list for a children's centre. Other responses to: ‘Which children’s centres services do you use?’ After school clubs

• Breakfast clubs, after school clubs. Baby massage

• When daughter was first born - baby massage and baby yoga. Baby on waiting list

• Currently our baby is on the waiting list for Violet Melchett. Baby yoga/yoga

• Baby Yoga • Music class at Clare Gardens, Yoga at Clare Gardens and post natal group at St Quintin. • When daughter was first born - baby massage and baby yoga. • While on maternity leave I attended yoga and rhyme time.

Break 4 you

• Break 4 You.



Breakfast clubs • Breakfast clubs, after school clubs.

Breastfeeding Cafe

• Breastfeeding cafes, events like zoo, etc. Childminder's drop in

• Childminder's drop in. • Childminder's drop in – Tuesday.

Day courses

• Short/day courses: sewing, reiki, crafts. Clare Gardens cinema. Daycare/childcare

• Daycare. • My child is at the nursery at Golborne Children's Centre. • My eldest is also at the nursery school at Golborne Children's Centre. • Nursery. • Nursery education. • Education (Nursery). • Nursery. • Nursery. • Nursery officer at Chelsea Open Air. • Nursery School.

Family learning

• Travel Club, Family Learning. First aid course

• Have done a nail course and parent courses, also applied for first aid course. Music

• Music. • Music class at Clare Gardens, Yoga at Clare Gardens and post natal group at St Quintin.

Nail course

• Have done a nail course and parent courses also applied for first aid course. Other

• I live in Brighton. My children use Golborne Children's Centre and I frequently pick them up after nursery and do what I can to support the centre.

Play Hut

• Play Hut, Illys Booker Centre. Playgroup

• Meanwhile playgroup.



Post Natal group • Music class at Clare Gardens, Yoga at Clare Gardens and post natal group at St Quintin.

Rhyme time

• While on maternity leave I attended yoga and rhyme time. Staff

• Member of staff Travel Club

• Breastfeeding cafes, events like zoo, etc. • Travel club. • Travel Club, Family Learning.

Workshops

• Workshops provided by children's centre. Other responses to: ‘...which three of the following [services] do you think are the most important in meeting the needs of the most vulnerable in the borough?’ All are important

• All are important. • All of these are important they combine to create the service we need. • Every single aspect is of equal importance as without these services parents and

children can go without and suffer without support. • All of the above! • I would like to see all the services continue. • All services are valuable, especially when led by an expert. • Not easy to choose three because they are all connected and important. Nursery.

Cannot comment

• I think this is a failed question. People can only really comment on the services the use. Childcare

• Childcare services more than any other services enable low paid workers to stay employed.

• Education (Nursery) • Not easy to choose three because they are all connected and important. Nursery. • Nursery. • Nursery Education.

Early year's education

• Early years education. Family outreach

• Family outreach is also vital.



Health and economic wellbeing • Stay and Play brings families in. Health and economic well being are essential for

children and families. Massage

• New baby programme - massage, yoga, weaning. Meeting place

• Provide a place to meet other parents and talk to qualified staff. Mental health services

• Child and Adolescent Mental Health Services. Services can refer people on

• These three can refer people in need to other services in co-operation. Speech therapy

• I have never needed speech therapy but it is important! • Help with languages.

Stay and Play

• Stay and Play brings families in. Health and economic well being are essential for children and families.

Weaning

• New baby programme - massage, yoga, weaning. Yoga

• New baby programme - massage, yoga, weaning. ‘Are there any other services you would like to see children's centres offer?’ All services are good

• All of the above services are great and none of them should be changed. Arts

• More activities, sports, swimming, music, arts more languages classes to develop children's mental and physical, emotional up-building and enjoyment.

• Higher level of a 'helping people get back to work' as the training is aimed towards those that have minimum qualifications /skills or previous experience. It would be nice for some courses to run twice a week or have two sessions so that more can attend. Workshops for parent and child crafts, art and study skills.

Childcare/more childcare

• Affordable childcare places increased. • Duplication. This is not saving money. The Sure Start grant is not ring fenced so the

Council can allocate it to what the residents need. Affordable day care! Why is this not happening?



• If budgets are being cut I believe Council should focus on providing childcare services at most affordable cost they can.

• More affordable childcare. • More full time places for children. • There are currently vast amounts of support for EAL [English as an additional language]

children and those with language delay or who are not achieving developmentally as they should. However, there is no early years support for high achievers or those that are advanced and good with language. Two year old nursery places part time or full time, with ability to top up fees.

• These services already exist, why repeat them at the cost of childcare. Families from all backgrounds are struggling to maintain housekeeping and return to work. Daycare should be the priority.

• These services exist why duplicate, yes it may make it more convenient or raise numbers but with the current climate I feel money should support affordable day care and helping working families stay in employment.

• These services should be funded through the primary agency. This seems to be a waste of early year's money that could support affordable day care.

• I think children’s centres should just focus on child care. Weekend activities for children should be offered where parents are present also.

• I would prefer to keep the Council childcare as this has the biggest impact on my child and me!

• More childcare places. • nothing except Childcare services • Reduced childcare prices for working mothers • See the system of Halte-Garderie in France, where children can be cared for a few hours

a week when the carer has commitments e.g. hospital appointment, job interview, etc. Very useful when carer has no other support and limited funds, plus helps the child to learn to socialise with strangers.

• The current provision of daycare at Golborne Children's Centre is excellent. The extended hours care allows me to return to work and support my family at a reasonable price. I do not need any other services.

• Childcare that is affordable - the average family cannot afford £30 per day. Courses with free crèche

• Various courses, play and stay, parenting courses, outings etc. Courses with free crèche facilities.

Drop ins

• Provide more available dates for five days out of seven and provide drop in during half term dates of the academic year.

Duplication of services/funded elsewhere

• These services already exist, why repeat them at the cost of childcare. Families from all backgrounds are struggling to maintain housekeeping and return to work. Daycare should be the priority.

• These services exist why duplicate, yes it may make it more convenient or raise numbers but with the current climate I feel money should support affordable day care and helping working families stay in employment.



• These services should be funded through the primary agency. This seems to be a waste of early year's money that could support affordable day care.

• With less money should be less duplication. Even if it increases uptake and has a positive outcome, some areas should have a slimmed down service.

• No, because these services are already provided by other providers. • Not if it’s duplicated. However centres could advertise where these services would be

available for people. I'm happy with the tots and toddlers at Holmfield House and song time at Clare Gardens both with [named officer] who is brilliant with the children. At present I don't need any extra services.

Employment support

• Opportunity to work in schools and pick up skills - NNEB? • Family outreach and parenting courses. Training and advice to support people back to

work. • Higher level of a 'helping people get back to work' as the training is aimed towards those

that have minimum qualifications / skills or previous experience. It would be nice for some courses to run twice a week or have two sessions so that more can attend. Workshops for parent and child crafts, art and study skills.

• Provision of availability of health checks and explanation of why. Understanding of what employment support is needed.

Focus on quality

• I think it is important to focus on the quality of services provided. Golborne has just received an outstanding Ofsted report and it provides not only basic child caring services but a quality educational service for its children in the early year’s education programme, so it is hard to see why its funding would be cut when it is achieving such good results.

Fund what parents want

• Fund what parents want. Group activities

• Connecting with specific groups and make the centres available for groups to do activities.

Health visitor/health checks

• Health visitor, weighing children. • Provision of availability of health checks and explanation of why. Understanding of what

employment support is needed. Homework club

• Homework clubs. Help with reading. ICT

• Literacy ICT. Keep things as they are

• I would like them to stay as they are, they are well run. • The same service is better. • What they offer is highly commendable and I wish they continued the same way.



Language classes • More activities, sports, swimming, music, arts more languages classes to develop

children's mental and physical, emotional up-building and enjoyment Later childcare

• Crèche service after 5.30pm (for working parents who pick up their children). • Extending hours of childcare and crèche until 7pm to allow parents who work to have the

time to pick them up. Literacy

• Literacy ICT. • Homework clubs. Help with reading.

Maintain services

• I believe at present there are a good range of services, but these need to be maintained. Music


Parenting support/courses

• Parenting support (one to one). • More workshops to help parents support their children's learning. • Family outreach and parenting courses. Training and advice to support people back to

work. • Various courses, play and stay, parenting courses, outings etc. Courses with free crèche

facilities. Positive comments about services

• Kensington and Chelsea are providing fantastic services that support my son's development and enhances skills as parents.

• The services are brilliant. They support my son's development needs and have given me the skills I needed to return back to work. Children's centres are truly supporting the every child matters ethos.

• I am extremely happy with the child care that we receive at Golborne Children's Centre nursery. My child was identified as having some difficulties and the staff here were well aware of the other services available in the borough to help my family. They knew more than even my GP. I have seen speech therapist and parent support training to help us prepare my child for the start of school. If her issues were not identified as early as they were by the Golborne Children's Centre staff, my child's early education would have been seriously compromised. Moreover, the primary teachers would have had to deal with her disruptive behaviour.

• I think everything on offer is great though I'd like to see Stay and Play sessions in more of the centres.

• It really depends upon the quality and ease of access. High quality settings like Chelsea Open Air have excellent staff that can provide so much. If they are removed other providers will struggle and quality, health and safety will deteriorate.



School places • The main thing is that school places in the area are in short supply and the Council

should concentrate provision of services on this area and ancillary areas. Employment opportunities in the area are substantial already.

Services for high achievers

• There are currently vast amounts of support for EAL [English as an additional language] children and those with language delay or who are not achieving developmentally as they should. However, there is no early years support for high achievers or those that are advanced and good with language. Two year old nursery places part time or full time, with ability to top up fees.

Speech and language

• My son is having speech therapy and funding cuts will affect him and lots of other children.

Sports


Stay and Play

• Continue stay and play sessions. • I think everything on offer is great though I'd like to see Stay and Play sessions in more

of the Centres. • Various courses, play and stay, parenting courses, outings etc. Courses with free crèche

facilities. Support for single parents/vulnerable parents

• More help for single parents who have little or no support like myself. Without the 'enjoy and achieve' courses and without the stay and play I would have been isolated and without any support.

• More information, advice and guidance for parents who are vulnerable or in need of more support. This may include welcoming voluntary organisations to have an advice day to ensure parents are aware of the services available to them.

• More therapeutic services to support families e.g. counselling. Travel club

• Various courses, play and stay, parenting courses, outings etc. Courses with free crèche facilities.

• Very low cost outing days for families that cannot afford holidays as days out. Weekend activities

• I think children’s centres should just focus on child care. Weekend activities for children should be offered where parents are present also.

Weighing children

• Health visitor, weighing children.



‘If you have other ideas about how services could be delivered differently, please explain below.’ Attract funding

• Childcare services for paying parents who work to make it more affordable, and maybe get more funds from charitable organisations and add extra enjoyable activities for children, rather than just keeping them - more play and learn activities.

Against hub and spoke model

• There is a real danger of recreating silos of vulnerable families, rather than retaining the rich diversity available at present. Models which reduce eight centres down to four high calibre ones based in schools and early help centres would be far more inclusive. What research has been done on the sustainability of hub and spoke models, particularly without staff?

Centre run activities

• I feel that the services created by the centre run better, have better attendance and fit the needs of local families better. Maybe funding should be solely given to each centre to be run by employees (ELM).

Charge for services

• If you are looking at charging then people should be asked to pay a donation instead. Those that can afford to overpay and those who can't, can still enjoy for free. Also advertising for trained volunteers to help run pay and play services for example.

Charge high earners

• First of all, I would much rather the Council cut costs in any other areas than in childcare provision. For instance I would rather see services cut in the following areas: repair of roads, parks and leisure and sports facilities. Leisure and sport is nowhere near as essential to a society as investing in the next generation. Many of the spaces classified as green spaces are actually not big enough to be really used. Secondly instead of making cuts in childcare provision, then by all means charge families with high incomes (of which my family is one) higher rates (commensurate with the private sector).

Charge more for childcare

• Other ideas for providing income for the children's centre: hire out the centre for birthday parties, reduce the underutilised children in need spaces and sell those spaces - which there is a demand for, hire more staff to create more spaces for children and worst case scenario increase fees moderately to fund the gap.

• Stop duplication which is clearly happening with children's centres and other departments. Evaluate how you would keep day care within the Council and maybe raise revenue elsewhere or increase fees slightly.

• Raise fees if necessary, means test parents, reduce funding spent on training schemes (how many people who have been on training schemes use their new skills to go back to work?). Raise the fees if a child does a full day 8am - 5.30pm, rather than 9am - 4pm.

Charge the same to all

• Disadvantaged or poor families may receive a subsidy but better off families pay disproportionate local, income and capital gains tax already to reflect their superior



earnings. Thus these families should not have to pay more as a subsidy of the poor. Let them claim benefits to which they are legally entitled.

Charge residents from other boroughs

• If costs are the issue, introduce means testing and increase childcare fees for those who can afford to pay. Increase by renting out facilities at the weekends, charge residents of other boroughs who use the centres.

Childcare

• Childcare services for paying parents who work to make it more affordable, and maybe get more funds from charitable organisations and add extra enjoyable activities for children, rather than just keeping them - more play and learn activities.

• GPs should be left to deal with health issues, like health visiting, midwifery etc. We have different organisations providing training and support people back to work, GP provides parenting support. The children centre should be provided childcare services only with affordable charges.

• I see a lot of wastage - nail courses being offered! This is not a necessity, we need affordable childcare to work - or would you prefer me on benefits?

• If we didn't have free to all courses and events such as travel club, nails, goals, DIY and rubbish crèches to accompany them. I have attended these, they are meaningless and half empty. Daycare shows quality and had the greatest support for children and families. Why change that!

• Less money spent on fun courses, parents need affordable daycare and this is currently the best service. Losing this would affect my health, well being and economic wellbeing.

• Open more childcare places by using free rooms, hiring more staff, charging fee to cover service.


• Stop duplication which is clearly happening with children's centres and other departments. Evaluate how you would keep day care within the Council and maybe raise revenue elsewhere or increase fees slightly.

• Strongly believe that no other providers should take care of childcare. Maybe reduce duplication and use of volunteers can help.

Consultation process

• I feel that the consultation process hasn't provided enough relevant material or information to give me an opportunity to provide ideas that are specific enough to the problem at hand. However, even within the constraints of the very limited information provided, there are plenty of ideas that should have been considered. It is unclear to me if anybody has looked at them (again due to lack of information), amongst them: - Mapping duplicated activities and merging when possible - Charging model - are people asked to pay in relation to their income - Have we asked the very experienced staff in the centres - Why do the Council fund activities already provided by other organisations (midwifery, health visiting and employment support)? I think the Council is wasting an opportunity by not involving the relevant stakeholders in the exploration of the options. Instead the consultation seems to be going down the route of outsourcing services. I



have plenty of information in this space. Benefits are seldom realised, and almost always there is an impact on the services.

Diversity

• Remember you are providing a public service for people with limited or average means in a rich borough where everything is expensive. We don't want ghetto nurseries: some for the (white) rich, and others for the 'poor ethnic minorities'. Plus the Borough has deep pockets.

• There is a real danger of recreating silos of vulnerable families, rather than retaining the rich diversity available at present. Models which reduce eight centres down to four high calibre ones based in schools and early help centres would be far more inclusive. What research has been done on the sustainability of hub and spoke models, particularly without staff?

Do not use volunteers

• Less duplication with SLT [speech and language therapy], health visitors, midwives. I disagree on volunteers, we need experienced well qualified staff to support families, sometimes less (better quality) is more. Look at how much it would cost to make the day care break even.

• Volunteers are good to help out, but please don't replace people working there already. Thank you.

• Quality childcare provided by qualified staff is not cheap but, I think crucial, for all children’s' development. Services will only work if provided by specialists in their field.

Early intervention

• There is clear evidence to show early intervention and good education not only saves money later but also ensures stronger local/national economy. Let evidence and not politics make the decision.

Hire out the venue

• Conferences, parties. • If costs are the issue, introduce means testing and increase childcare fees for those who

can afford to pay. Increase by renting out facilities at the weekends, charge residents of other boroughs who use the centres.


Hub centre

• It would seem to me that in order to ensure that the most vulnerable families are accessing services then these services should be located in the nearest community space available. Cheyne and World's End Under 5's Centre are both located in some of the most deprived areas of the south locality, yet the proposal is to locate the 'centre of excellence' at Violet Melchett at the opposite end of the Kings Road.

Leave as is

• Everything is fine as it is!



• Happy with services the way they are. • I do not think the service should become privatised as standards drop drastically. • Perfect as it is. • Private sector and volunteers are good in principle, but I can't see how they can match

the quality we currently enjoy in Golborne Children’s Centre staff. Like I say, they knew exactly who to refer my child to. The local GP was not as aware of the services.

• Is preferable to stay like this. Because we know all the staff working there and the children love them.

• Present system can be kept if those using it feel it satisfies their needs. Consultation with those concerned and yes by all means use volunteers, but must be accustomed to children and have knowledge of centres.

Links with local groups

• Continue existing support and childcare facilities link with local groups to work closely with children's centre under preventive strategy.

Library services

• Some libraries have music sessions only in the mornings, for example Kensington Library. I would like to have afternoon sessions.

Look at finances

• Instead of selling of vital services look at ways to balance the cost and income. Parents have stated they are willing to pay more but private providers etc. charge too much for us to afford.


Lower prices

• Lower prices. Make cuts to other services

• First of all, I would much rather the Council cut costs in any other areas than in childcare provision. For instance I would rather see services cut in the following areas: repair of roads, parks and leisure and sports facilities. Leisure and sport is nowhere near as essential to a society as investing in the next generation. Many of the spaces classified as green spaces are actually not big enough to be really used. Secondly instead of making cuts in childcare provision, then by all means charge families with high incomes (of which my family is one) higher rates (commensurate with the private sector).

• Reduce the Council printing budget to keep the services as they are. I see far too many advertisements and leaflets printed. Either combine the information or make it available on the Council's website.

Means testing

• I feel that the consultation process hasn't provided enough relevant material or information to give me an opportunity to provide ideas that are specific enough to the problem at hand. However, even within the constraints of the very limited information provided, there are plenty of ideas that should have been considered. It is unclear to me



if anybody has looked at them (again due to lack of information), amongst them: - Mapping duplicated activities and merging when possible - Charging model - are people asked to pay in relation to their income? Have we asked the very experienced staff in the centres? Why do the Council fund activities already provided by other organisations (midwifery, health visiting and employment support)? I think the Council is wasting an opportunity by not involving the relevant stakeholders in the exploration of the options. Instead the consultation seems to be going down the route of outsourcing services. I have plenty of information in this space. Benefits are seldom realised, and almost always there is an impact on the services.

• If costs are the issue, introduce means testing and increase childcare fees for those who can afford to pay. Increase by renting out facilities at the weekends, charge residents of other boroughs who use the centres.

• I agree that health services should be provided by health centres. This would free up rooms and staff to provide more child care services. Childcare services could be means tested.


Merging centres

• I understand that there are plans to merge the Golborne Children's Centre with Maxilla. I see that this would provide a reduction in the running costs of two separate centres.

• I would like to see Golborne Children's Centre take on Maxilla Children's Centre work as I understand their lease is up in the next year or so.

More activities

• Childcare services for paying parents who work to make it more affordable, and maybe get more funds from charitable organisations and add extra enjoyable activities for children, rather than just keeping them - more play and learn activities

Online services

• More online services such as returning to work. Other

• This is difficult to answer without a clear vision for provision across the borough. Such a vision should acknowledge the well evidenced later savings which are made from investment in high quality early years provision. Reference in a vision should really be strongly made to the DFE's early year's evidence pack.

Positive comments about services

• All the services are delivered well. • I have no other ideas of how the services could be delivered. The current services

provided by the children's centre is perfect! Quality

• It is hard to make suggestions when the services we are getting at Golborne are so great already. The quality of service is an important factor to focus on.



Reduce duplication • Reduce duplication. • Reduce duplication and try to recruit more volunteers. • Stop duplication which is clearly happening with children's centres and other

departments. Evaluate how you would keep day care within the Council and maybe raise revenue elsewhere or increase fees slightly.

• Strongly believe that no other providers should take care of childcare. Maybe reduce duplication and use of volunteers can help.

• There are many activities (stay and play, baby groups, etc.) which are provided in several centres - they could be streamlined, but extending capacity in the remaining centres so people don't lose out.

• Reduce duplication, but advertise in centres as some people are not very resourceful. Reduce childcare costs

• Every other country charge around £100 - £200 a month, I don't understand why we have to pay so much. Why doesn’t the parent pay £100 a month and then the government pay the rest or Council? How can Germany do that and the UK can't, ridiculous.

Stop/reduce non-essential services

• I see a lot of wastage - nail courses being offered! This is not a necessity, we need affordable childcare to work - or would you prefer me on benefits?

• If we didn't have free to all courses and events such as travel club, nails, goals, DIY and rubbish crèches to accompany them. I have attended these, they are meaningless and half empty. Daycare shows quality and had the greatest support for children and families. Why change that!

• Less money on services like free: swimming, goals, bramleys, sewing, DIY, sewing, nails. These are not important to parents to earn a living and bring up a family in difficult financial times.

• Less money spent on fun courses, parents need affordable daycare and this is currently the best service. Losing this would affect my health, well being and economic wellbeing.

• Perhaps one main south and one main north of the borough to provide health visitor/drop in sessions one/two days a week. Combine stay and play with health visitor sessions.

• When I visit the health visitor/baby clinic, I go to Walmer Road (Colville) or my friends visit St. Charles. Why do the children's centres offer this? Training to support people back to work - just costs more money and some don't even want to work.


Stop/reduce services provided elsewhere

• GP's should be left to deal with health issues, like health visiting, midwifery etc. We have different organisations providing training and support people back to work, GP provides parenting support. The children’s centre should be provided Childcare services only with affordable charges.

• Health visitor through GP clinic, midwifery through hospitals, speech therapy through referral by GP or nursery and parenting support through adult education centres.

• I feel that the consultation process hasn't provided enough relevant material or information to give me an opportunity to provide ideas that are specific enough to the problem at hand. However, even within the constraints of the very limited information



provided, there are plenty of ideas that should have been considered. It is unclear to me if anybody has looked at them (again due to lack of information), amongst them: - Mapping duplicated activities and merging when possible - Charging model - are people asked to pay in relation to their income? Have we asked the very experienced staff in the centres? Why do the Council fund activities already provided by other organisations (midwifery, health visiting and employment support)? I think the Council is wasting an opportunity by not involving the relevant stakeholders in the exploration of the options. Instead the consultation seems to be going down the route of outsourcing services. I have plenty of information in this space. Benefits are seldom realised, and almost always there is an impact on the services.


• Less money spent on health and other services and more Council run affordable daycare.

• Maybe fund less of the visiting people, speech, health, library, etc. • When I visit the health visitor/baby clinic, I go to Walmer Road (Colville) or my friends

visit St. Charles. Why do the children's centres offer this? Training to support people back to work - just costs more money and some don't even want to work.

• Why have children's libraries in centres? You are just taking away visitors from using actual libraries. I know for a fact these satellite libraries are not maintained or well used and a lot of stock goes missing!

• I agree that health services should be provided by health centres. This would free up rooms and staff to provide more child care services. Childcare services could be means tested.

Support for parents

• A session for parents to meet and discuss their issues together to create a safe and friendly dialogue outside of the nursery setting. This will reduce isolation and anxiety once others can provide experiences they have had or know of a service parents can contact for support.

Support most vulnerable

• More outreach to the most vulnerable. Health visitors and midwife support. Home visits. In my experience the majority of these services are accessed by the same people at children's centres and those most in need don't manage. Therefore home visits and outreach should be the priority. When I attended post natal support it was very poorly attended.

Use volunteers

• Connect with volunteer bureau for additional staff. • If you are looking at charging then people should be asked to pay a donation instead.

Those that can afford to overpay and those who can't can still enjoy for free. Also advertising for trained volunteers to help run pay and play services for example.

• In Kensington and Chelsea - I think there should be better use of volunteers I am a stay at home mum and I would be a volunteer.

• More range of volunteers, e.g. other ethnicities. There are always more Arabic people and other people feel uncomfortable.



• Reduce duplication and try to recruit more volunteers. • Strongly believe that no other providers should take care of childcare. Maybe reduce

duplication and use of volunteers can help. • Unemployed parents would volunteer and do courses for free and get a crèche place and

work in the children's centres on reception and in many roles for free whilst training. The training could be for adults with children of any age so that those with school kids wouldn't need free crèche.

• Use of volunteers • Volunteers would be good but training would need to be provided. • Use of volunteers, but not to replace trained staff. Use to help train them only. • Present system can be kept if those using it feel it satisfies their needs. Consultation with

those concerned and yes by all means use volunteers, but must be accustomed to children and have knowledge of centres.

• Services offered by different providers or volunteers. • You can ask people of the community, all with different unique talents to volunteer for the

talent they have and pass on to others who don't. Sponsorship

• Get some larger associations to sponsor some of the events/services. Use other providers

• Services offered by different providers or volunteers. Working with the police

• Police and community coordinators working closer together not just for rough parts of town but for example: 60-70 something people with plenty of time to spare could spend time helping young busy families with homework, reading while being checked by the Police for safety of the children (paedophiles).

‘If you are against moving to this model, or have any other ideas on how the necessary savings can be achieved please explain below.’ Against government cuts

• It's very sad to see how the Government cuts in public services relate to children. They are the future. There are more things in which the Government should cut savings, for instance, the politician's salaries.

Against proposal

• When I first heard of this proposal, I was in favour but now that I hear that Golborne Children's Centre and Maxilla are federating and there are plans to close the children services at Maxilla I question this proposal. At its core the proposal states, all eight centres will remain open. But that is not true.

• Because each centre knows their visitors and it will hard to move to other centres or if we want to look for the manager it will be hard to meet him or her. So each manager has his way to deal with his customers. I am against this change.

Against service cuts

• If services are to be cut without extending capacity in the remaining service providers, the most vulnerable will lose out.



All should be Ofsted inspected • I think it is unreasonable to ask parents to send a child to a centre that has not been

Ofsted inspected in its own right. Inspections should, if performed properly be a support to the facility rather than a burden. I would be concerned that issues would fall between the cracks in this model.

• If we have the hub model then failing centres are able to hide easier under Ofsted inspections without parents’ identification as centres are awarded result as a group and not individuals as is currently the case.

• Two year old places - part time, with the ability to top up if needed or full time. Maxilla should be more of a hub as it is purpose built and excellent at delivering the services it does. Having the service as just two inspection units will not make parents feel confident. I want my child's nursery, staff and management to be inspected as a service on its own, not part of a hub. How will I know that my child is receiving the level of education and care that Ofsted say when it's part of a network? For all the faults of Ofsted they still make parents feel confident and assured. The model you propose will not.

• If there are no Ofsted checks then staff can do what they want without being afraid and we will have more cases like the nursery that has closed recently for indecent pictures taken by staff.

Alternative hub suggested

• Explain how this works within your agreements with the other two boroughs (Hammersmith and Fulham and Westminster). The hub, if any, should be where most first mums would be most familiar with and can find everything in one location e.g. Clare Gardens, not Golborne/Holmfield.

• I don’t understand, why did you choose Holmfield as the Hub. Maybe if Maxilla was the Hub, would be preferred.

• I would only be in favour of this model if the hub in the North of the borough was Golborne Children's Centre rather than Holmfield House as Golborne is recognised as a centre of excellence.

• Two year old places - part time, with the ability to top up if needed or full time. Maxilla should be more of a hub as it is purpose built and excellent at delivering the services it does. Having the service as just two inspection units will not make parents feel confident. I want my child's nursery, staff and management to be inspected as a service on its own, not part of a hub. How will I know that my child is receiving the level of education and care that Ofsted say when it's part of a network? For all the faults of Ofsted they still make parents feel confident and assured. The model you propose will not.

Cannot suggest other ways to save money

• I am not entirely sure how the Council will protect working parents. Should childcare fees be increased, how will parents be assessed to see if they can afford to continue working. How will staff morale at the centres be monitored in the interest of our children? Unless there is transparency about cost I cannot suggest appropriate alternative ways of saving money.

Centres need outside managers

• I feel that centres need to be led by outside managers in order to know and understand the community.



Childcare costs • This model will see a steep rise in childcare costs. The current costs already cause a

financial strain and working parents would not be able to afford any additional costs. If this new model were to be implemented I fear I would not be able to remain in employment.

Concerned about impact on satellite centres

• Am concerned 'hubs' will leave non 'hub' centres short staffed/underfunded due to loss in income from other activities. Council can make savings by cutting number of days of rubbish collection. It's currently three times a week in my street. That can be reduced to twice. Also Council can provide more rubbish bins and reduce number of street sweepers employed.

Concerned about impact on satellite centres

• E.g. training to support people back to work, midwifery maybe should not be used as part of the funds which should be for nursery/schools. One hub might mean less services for nursery/schools, no improvement in terms of quality given to children as it would cut down management and Ofsted checks.

• Non hub centres will have funding reduced and will increase their prices. More savings by stopping non-childcare services (job vacancies/training/midwifery/health visitor) can all be funded elsewhere.

• The notion against closure is most likely not the most effective cost saving measure, unless satellite centre budgets are to be so reduced that they remain a centre in name only. If this is the case then the quality services that the Council prides itself on delivering are at risk of closure or falling into decline, as centres will not have the staff or resources to manage, deliver and oversee the range of provision that is currently on offer.

• Because each centre knows their visitors and it will hard to move to other centres or if we want to look for the manager it will be hard to meet him or her. So each manager has his way to deal with his customers. I am against this change.

• I'm against this new model as I feel that one main 'hub' would not accommodate all those who need to use its services. Also, many families may live far from the 'hub’ and not be able to afford extra travel money. My concern is also the reduction of services offered in the other centres. Some savings could be made by employing volunteers or low paid staff wishing to improve their work experience / CV.

• It's great and crucial at the under fives stage to have the various centres offer their individual services to help develop and stimulate the infants and toddlers in preparation for school life.

• So long as the hubs don't reduce the services currently at its centres. • With only one hub representing the four children's centres. The most vulnerable in the

borough, who are continuously being informed, advised and encouraged to access all the services by the hard work of leaders in these individual centres, may not make use of these services due to lack of enough information and advice and also due to distance and a new environment.

Costs

• Because services will become privatised making it even less affordable for disadvantaged parents, especially parents on low incomes. The children's learning will suffer if employees are not qualified and work to a high standard.



Council can save on other services • Am concerned 'hubs' will leave non 'hub' centres short staffed/underfunded due to loss in

income from other activities. Council can make savings by cutting number of days of rubbish collection. It's currently three times a week in my street. That can be reduced to twice. Also Council can provide more rubbish bins and reduce number of street sweepers employed.

• Council should look to save money in areas other than childcare. Current system works well.

• Money for education should be of paramount importance when it comes to Council budgets. The Council has already lengthened the times for parking restrictions outside my flat. Money generation is key and expenditure cuts should come from management areas within the Council.

• No savings at Cheyne are likely to be possible as I imagine it is a 'lean' organisation, run efficiently with high standards and no wastage. Find savings elsewhere please.

• Saving can be achieved by stopping giving money to those people who doesn't deserve it. (Benefit fraud!).

Decline in quality

• After some information I am still unclear how this would work out and I am very worried it will lead to decline in quality, and increase of trouble for parents and children.

• By linking the services through a 'hub' and having one or two annual Ofsted inspections will decrease the quality of the services. Each service should be inspected according to their quality. All the services do not provide the same quality of service and I believe they should be inspected separately

• E.g. training support people back to work, midwifery maybe should not be used as part of the funds which should be for nursery/schools. One hub might mean less service for nursery/schools, no improvement in terms of quality given to children as it would cut down management and Ofsted checks.

• I believe the service has decreased in reach and quality since moving towards this model. Services are not what parents want, free swimming, DIY, nails - how much does this cost? How many people have returned to work as a direct input from this?

• I do not think you can manage the services remotely. I think the care and quality would be affected if this happened.

• I do not want to see a reduced quality and range in the services provided by children's centre.

• I don't think the model has really been clearly explained. It seems that management roles would be cut back - if this meant centres away from the hub would not have a manager on site I think it is a bad idea. I feel the nursery benefits from the clear management based in the centre of someone who is not involved in the hands on running of the nursery. I feel the quality of the service, especially the way 'delicate' issues are dealt with will suffer.

• The notion against closure is most likely not the most effective cost saving measure, unless satellite centre budgets are to be so reduced that they remain a centre in name only. If this is the case then the quality services that the Council prides itself on delivering are at risk of closure or falling into decline, as centres will not have the staff or resources to manage, deliver and oversee the range of provision that is currently on offer.

• Because services will become privatised making it even less affordable for disadvantaged parents, especially parents on low incomes. The children's learning will suffer if employees are not qualified and work to a high standard.



• I am unsure as there is no explanation as to how each children's centre would be managed. Restructuring and squeezing more out of workers is counterproductive causing dissatisfaction, stress among the team which has a negative impact on their work, which is then filtered into their working day and children they are working with.

• My concern is mostly that we would lose highly trained dedicated staff for less qualified staff.

Difficult to manage

• How can you manage a centre when not on site - keep control in individual centres, therefore you get best service.

• I do not think you can manage the services remotely. I think the care and quality would be affected if this happened.

• I don't believe that a manager could run four centres as effectively as they would not be able to deal with issues.

• I don't think the model has really been clearly explained. It seems that management roles would be cut back - if this meant centres away from the hub would not have a manager on site I think it is a bad idea. I feel the nursery benefits from the clear management based in the centre of someone who is not involved in the hands on running of the nursery. I feel the quality of the service, especially the way 'delicate' issues are dealt with will suffer.

• St Quintin Centre and St Quintin CWD are joined together and jointly use some of the rooms. How will this work? It is already hard to manage our service with their workers coming in and out. It would be hard for a private provider to have their kitchen in our part.

• The reason the services and impact of the children's centres are so good is due to onsite leadership and management. Changing the model would be a disaster. Also having a manager for both the day care and children's centre saves money. Changing the model would just keep more senior managers and admin staff, no in my book.

Hubs don't have the right coverage

• The centres you now have need to be in practical proximity of where people live, some families don't have cars. The hubs don't give appropriate regional coverage.

In favour of the model

• Centralising the services in the borough to a hub at Violet Melchett makes sense as it is an extremely well run organisation and easily accessible by many buses even if not local to all residents.

• Centres can work together and they can organise centres services and the other centres can be used for the children to play. Parents can contribute with money to have their children stay and play.

Keep childcare services

• Childcare and crèche services cannot be closed; they allow parents to have a job. • Paying elsewhere is not wise how can they provide it cheaper to the Council, if we the

people are still responsible to the children in our borough. Keep individual centres

• Each centre is unique and knows their own families and how best to provide for them. • I believe that all the centres have big role in some parents’ lives that one should not be

made more superior to another. They are all great centres and it should stay this way.



Leave as is • Keep the existing services running • Things should remain the same! • Would like things to remain the same. • Why change a system that works well, it will not save money in the short or even medium

term. Transitions to privately run bodies are rarely successful. Less personal and friendly

• Having individual centres is more intimate, personal, friendly Look at services

• The savings which can be made have to be more transparent, a balance between the effect of families and children and cost saving should be looked a carefully. I believe it's worthwhile to continue and improve the existing services as well assessing the benefit the families gain.

More information needed

• I believe that the information provided in the leaflets is not sufficient for people to make an informed decision on whether the proposals are good or not. The way the proposed strategy is explained is too vague to show the real implications of the new setup suggested. More information is needed and the quality of services provided needs to be a factor influencing the creation of new strategies.

• I don't see the point of this nor the effectiveness it will have on saving the Council money. • I don't think the model has really been clearly explained. It seems that management roles

would be cut back - if this meant centres away from the hub would not have a manager on site I think it is a bad idea. I feel the nursery benefits from the clear management based in the centre of someone who is not involved in the hands on running of the nursery. I feel the quality of the service, especially the way 'delicate' issues are dealt with will suffer.

• I'm not for or against moving to this model because I haven't seen enough information on 1) How the savings are going to be realised and 2) what will be the impact on children services. Without some level of detail around these areas, the question is meaningless and so is any answer. In theory, a hub model may be a great idea, but then the details of the implementation may make it even more complex than the current arrangement or have a disastrous impact on quality. Apart from that, I have plenty of ideas on how to achieve the necessary savings. However, as I mentioned in my answer to question 9, there are limits to how useful my answer can be with the limited information provided. To elaborate on some of them: Mapping duplicated activities and merging when possible: has a proper assessment of activities been done? Charging model - are people asked to pay in relation to their income? What is the proportion of subsidised vs. unsubsidised users? Can this be changed? Have we asked the very experienced staff in the centres? What have they proposed? Have we explored models to increase the revenues from existing centres, for example renting them? Why do the Council fund activities already provided by other organisations (midwifery, health visiting and employment support). Has anybody done an analysis of overhead vs. core activities spend? Given that the ratio of carers per child are set by the government, the extra spend is associated with fixed costs or non core activities - has anybody analysed this? There are plenty of stakeholders with an interest in the success of these centres (like some of us parents) who are



talented individuals and would be happy to volunteer time to help the Borough find opportunities. Why not involve us much earlier in the process to look for other options?

• I'm still unsure as to what this reorganisation means? • Let us see where the cost savings are? If this model is already working why is it a

proposal? Children’s centre managers make these centres, change that and your service is bad.

• Do not fully understand the proposed strategy and its key features fully. Also, who exactly are the most disadvantaged families in the proposed strategy?

• I am not sure how it will work. • I am unsure as there is no explanation as to how each children's centre would be

managed. Restructuring and squeezing more out of workers is counterproductive causing dissatisfaction, stress among the team which has a negative impact on their work, which is then filtered into their working day and children they are working with.

• My 'don't know' is it really makings savings. • Where do the very highest quality settings, the maintained nursery schools fit in. The

Council should build upon and extend these. The suggested model is vague and lacks real future vision as who will actually run services once staff are all gone?

No benefit to parents

• It doesn't seem like moving into a hub is actually beneficial to the children or families within those nurseries but for your pockets. The rapport you build as a parent with your childcare providers and the nursery managers is important for the development of the children.

Other savings/fund raising suggestions

• Donations from the parents. • Fundraising events. Increasing the fees gradually. • I am not against paying for the services and let families in more need get the services for

free. You could also include a parent funding facility? It would be a tax benefit for parent accepting to put money into the children's school fund.

• I think the necessary savings can be achieved by creating other income streams such as renting the hall.

• I'm not for or against moving to this model because I haven't seen enough information on 1) How the savings are going to be realised and 2) what will be the impact on children services. Without some level of detail around these areas, the question is meaningless and so is any answer. In theory, a hub model may be a great idea, but then the details of the implementation may make it even more complex than the current arrangement or have a disastrous impact on quality. Apart from that, I have plenty of ideas on how to achieve the necessary savings. However, as I mentioned in my answer to question 9, there are limits to how useful my answer can be with the limited information provided. To elaborate on some of them: Mapping duplicated activities and merging when possible: has a proper assessment of activities been done? Charging model - are people asked to pay in relation to their income? What is the proportion of subsidised vs. unsubsidised users? Can this be changed? Have we asked the very experienced staff in the centres? What have they proposed? Have we explored models to increase the revenues from existing centres, for example renting them? Why do the Council fund activities already provided by other organisations (midwifery, health visiting and employment support). Has anybody done an analysis of overhead vs. core activities spend? Given that the ratio of carers per child are set by the government, the extra spend is associated with fixed costs



or non core activities - has anybody analysed this? There are plenty of stakeholders with an interest in the success of these centres (like some of us parents) who are talented individuals and would be happy to volunteer time to help the Borough find

• I'm still unsure as to what this reorganisation means? • Open more places for childcare to public. Plenty of empty rooms in Cheyne and Violet

Melchett nurseries. • Parents paying for some services e.g. playgroups, baby massage, song and rhyme

times. • There has been a valid proposal to link Chelsea and Westminster Hospital with Cheyne

and Violet Melchett. This was not considered but would raise revenue. Positive comments about the centres/staff

• I feel the reason I visit children’s centres is due to the feel and welcome I receive, particularly at Violet Melchett [named officers] are always on hand and have stopped me feeling so isolated and depressed! People are the best resource.

• The staff at the children's centres interact best and understand what families need. The changes in courses over the last year are not positive!

• I've been using Maxilla Centre for a couple of years and I love it, love the staff, the facilities and the free courses, I like to bring my friends to the centre and they always love it and they tell me it's one of the best centres and I'm lucky it's near me.

• Some of the centres in the south do nothing but Chelsea Open Air makes a real difference. It is a community and does great work with a diverse range of families - like society. It is a leader.

Services on offer

• As long as we continue to offer useful courses and help - why do we need DIY courses? Is this a wise way to spend money?

• E.g. training support people back to work, midwifery maybe should not be used as part of the funds which should be for nursery/schools. One hub might mean less service for nursery/schools, no improvement in terms of quality given to children as it would cut down management and Ofsted checks.

• I believe the service has decreased in reach and quality since moving towards this model. Services are not what parents want, free swimming, DIY, nails - how much does this cost? How many people have returned to work as a direct input from this?

• Non hub centres will have funding reduced and will increase their prices. More savings by stopping non-childcare services (job vacancies/training/midwifery/health visitor) can all be funded elsewhere.

• The groups run directly by the centre work best, they listen to what we need. • The staff at the children's centres interact best and understand what families need. The

changes in courses over the last year are not positive! • This could save on admin costs, as long as services are not reduced. Some

classes/sessions for parents and babies/children are not taken up as much as others. Popular sessions should be duplicated or moved to larger spaces, while unused sessions cut, if they are not being used.

• You can tell the difference between courses run by the centre (stay and play) and courses organised outside the centre. I feel that the Council is wasting money on travel club, courses on nails and DIY. Millions of the same courses. People visiting stay and play but do not help in anyway. Stick to outstanding daycare that's affordable.



Tri-borough arrangements • Explain how this works within your agreements with the other two boroughs

(Hammersmith and Fulham and Westminster). The hub, if any, should be where most first mums would be most familiar with and can find everything in one location e.g. Clare Gardens, not Golborne/Holmfield.

Unsure

• Not sure Use volunteers

• Many unemployed parents can only work term time hours. They can volunteer and receive training and support to help run a children's centre.

• More voluntary workers. • Use volunteers with local community. • By using and employing volunteers as many people have got spare time to use their

talents and skills and they would happily do so. • I'm against this new model as I feel that one main 'hub' would not accommodate all those

who need to use its services. Also, many families may live far from the 'hub ‘and not be able to afford extra travel money. My concern is also the reduction of services offered in the other centres. Some savings could be made by employing volunteers or low paid staff wishing to improve their work experience / CV.

Won't target the disadvantaged

• Moving to one hub would not effectively target the most disadvantaged families simply because of the inconvenience to travel, right now most of the services are effective because nursery staff encourage parents while they drop and pick up their children.

‘If you are against moving this proposal please explain why?’ Accountability

• In principle I understand the need but a few big factors. What is new increased cost? Currently like mix of families versus many private nurseries that weed out mix. Being under Council, find higher sense of accountability versus privatisation. Charging those who can afford is fine to a point as to have families subsidise gap of free place might then become cost prohibitive for families.

• You say you want to get parents back to work but going ahead with this proposal would cause more parents to give up work. We want affordable day care, quality day care, existing staff - continuity. A Council answerable service, not a company trying to make money - what about school readiness?

Against privatisation

• Childcare is vital. Privatising leads to dwindling services. Benefit of childcare

• Children benefit the most when playing with other children in nursery settings.



Concerns about hub • Working families will suffer. Those on low incomes like myself will have to pay for

services as we earn just about the amount where we would qualify for help. Having part time places would also affect the quality of education and experience for the children. It would be less consistent. Parents will not feel confident with the new model a 'hub' outside of your own children's centre will make decision making and services worse and more inaccessible.

Concerns for disadvantaged families

• It wouldn't be as personal and welcoming. It would be in risk of being about making money rather than saving money. Ultimately the children's needs would come second. Also disadvantaged families would be disregarded.

Cost of consultation

• I pay for childcare (it's expensive and I can't afford it, but I have to do it to stay in work) if you move/merge to private sector, childcare costs will increase and will therefore be totally out of my reach. This whole consultation is a complete waste of money. How much did this cost to put together?

Costings

• One affordable high quality service that parents actually need and want and you are looking to change that. I am totally against this and hope the Council will listen to other proposals. I ask that the figures of how much this will save are published as we are always only given the amount of total savings. What is the deficit, income and outgoings?

Diversity

• I am completely against this proposal. I could afford to send my children to any nursery and I put them on the waiting list at the Violet Melchett centre for a reason: the centre is extremely well run and their prime regard is for the welfare of the child, not for commercial considerations. For example, a few years ago, when I looked at other childcare options for my first child, I asked whether my child could stay just two days a week. The private providers said yes. Violet Melchett said no as in their experience the child would not settle into a proper routine. I was really impressed with the way that rather than taking the business of two days, they preferred to turn it down for the sake of the welfare of the child. Secondly, and just as importantly a public nursery like Violet Melchett is one of the few places in the borough where families of all incomes, backgrounds and races can meet and I believe this is really important for a borough that despite having very high and low income families living side by side, has not seen riots etc. as witnessed last summer. Finally and most importantly, I know from having looked at private childcare providers’ figures that the reason why they can run services more cost effectively is because they employ less qualified staff and pay them less well. Some of the staff at Violet Melchett were really key to spotting some developmental delays that my oldest son had, and addressing them, and I am not sure this would have been spotted by less qualified and les well paid staff.

• I have experiences both with my child attending both private and Council. The Council nurseries vastly surpass the private. There is a greater mixture of children and the curriculum is totally appropriate. Also parents are much more involved.

• In principle I understand the need but a few big factors. What is new increased cost? Currently like mix of families versus many private nurseries that weed out mix. Being



under Council, find higher sense of accountability versus privatisation. Charging those who can afford is fine to a point as to have families have to subsidise gap of free place might then become cost prohibitive for families.

• Suggesting a private provider is the best option to look after the children in need is an aberration - you have to stick to public services. Plus childcare should be as inclusive as possible, and your model will lead to more segregation. On top of this, you have staff that are doing great work in a public setting and you will destroy all of their work. Going rates in the private sectors are shameful and will drive more mothers out of work, who are skilled and will claim benefits instead!

Don't use volunteers

• Private sector always bad idea when it comes to delivering a health service. Profit would most likely come before everything else. Not entirely comfortable about leaving a child with inexperienced volunteers either. Also hope those 'volunteers' aren't in fact coerced to make these jobs by the jobcentre or something. Will never trust the care of my child to a volunteer.

• There needs to be a full range of options for childcare to help with costs especially for less well off families. Voluntary childcare? How would this work? Someone caring for a child for no pay? Am I understanding this correctly? I would advise thorough considerations of the long term consequences of funding cuts in this department.

• Private providers would mean that most vulnerable can't afford it consequently the children would be stuck in front of TV eating crisps, becoming the next generation of brain washed sofa potatoes costing a fortune to the NHS. Where would be the economy? Voluntary sector...yes, but there would be no checking of who is doing what and how and again what's the benefit to the children if they are left in the hands of incompetent or even harmful influence (paedophiles making it through).

• That would be extra charges if you are taking someone privately and pay big commissions. It's like the NHS they take staff from agencies when they are short paying high commissions and their staff who are employed get minimum wage. Is that fair? If you take someone to volunteer, would you get good care from someone that doesn't get paid, I don't think so.

Evidence

• Not enough information has been provided to understand what other options were considered and how the decision to focus on this was reached. Patchy or no evidence to support the statement that the private sector can provide the same level of service at a lower cost. The fees mentioned in some of the leaflet circulated were far from complete or exhaustive. No clear explanation of the processes that will be put in place to assure the level of quality is sustained. This point is key: we are talking about children; it is not just about the ratio of carers by kid. No involvement of parents or staff in the shaping of the options. No evidence on knowledge/previous experience with outsourcing children services from the staff managing this consultation I could keep listing reasons but the above are serious enough to stop this exercise altogether and start again.

Increase in fees/impact of fee increases

• It will be only for people who have money, so more parents will stay home not working as it will be very expensive. So the Council will end up having more people in benefit



• A private provider will charge more because they will be looking to maximise profits. When looking for childcare I found nannies unaffordable and private nurseries unaffordable.

• Again I don't think this has clearly been explained. I am concerned that although the Council may save money, private or voluntary providers may increase costs for parents. As a single parent I will not be able to afford an increase in childcare costs. It makes me angry that costs may increase as it further contributes to families being forced out of the borough unless they are on a high income. I earn £33,000 a year so would not qualify as a low income household. I am concerned that the 'going rate' in Kensington and Chelsea will be considerably higher than the national average for childcare costs.

• Because it will increase the fees! If the fees are so expensive some mothers will have to stop working as they will not be able to pay the fees!

• Because of costs and change in staff, in the way things are run. • Because private sector are profit-oriented, their primary objective is maximising profit

rather than 'value for money'. Infant voluntary sectors are preferable but it may be difficult to find one which can provide a service at a large scale.

• Bringing private or voluntary sector into the Council centres would be a bad idea. They will have different ways of doing things and would probably be more expensive. At the moment the way the centres are run and the people who work here are good and at their jobs and can be trusted, I think changing this will affect the way the centres are perceived and I wouldn't want my daughter to continue attending it.

• Cannot afford private childcare. • Childcare services to be managed by private providers will completely destroy the quality

of the services plus the cost will not be affordable for many working families with low income. I can predict what will happen in the future. I personally believe that the Council had already made up its mind to hand in the childcare services to private sector. The cost will go up, so many working family will not be able to pay and will stop using the services. The centres will be left for few who can afford to pay and obviously it will be difficult for the private sector to run the service with few families using the service. Finally the private providers will convert the centres to something else where they can make money.

• Children's centres offer affordable fees (childcare) to working parents. If made private, some parents will not be able to afford it.

• Commissioning to: Private sector - One may provide less places to the most disadvantaged children in the borough and the cost made increase significantly on so called 'extra'. Therefore standard of service may fall. Voluntary sector - Key to childcare is continuity of staff, am concerned in the voluntary sector, teachers turn over may be very high and facility may be out dated.

• Council childcare is affordable, safe, clean and of excellent standards. Private is expensive, not as good and has poorly trained staff/paid staff. Childcare was the only option for me and has increased me being able to leave my home, helped my child and enabled me to have better health. Keep daycare Council funded!

• Fees will go up, services will degrade, staff will be cut (bad for our kids). • Golborne Children's Centre is an outstanding childcare provider, making it private will

lower standards and raise costs for hardworking parents. Private childcare in Kensington and Chelsea is the most expensive in the country - normal hardworking parents will not be able to afford private daycare. Providers like Golborne are like gold dust and enable low paid parents like me to stay employed.



• How are working low/middle income families meant to stay off benefits if affordable day care would shift focus off outstanding outcomes for children to a money making business.

• I am a working single mother. It has taken my son a long time to settle into nursery and he is now extremely happy. If you increase the fees will this affect me! Because if the fees are increased and I do not get the help I need (via tax credits). I will be forced to move my son where he is only going to be offered 15 hours by the state, which means my boss won’t be happy me working any less hours then I already do. Which will then cause me to be out of work and asking the government and state for more money. I cannot attend certain meetings about proposed ideas due to work but I will attend the 5 September. I really hope this will not affect myself and my child.

• I am afraid that will raise the prices and that's something that most families (to not say all) that takes their children to these centres cannot afford.

• I believe children's centres do a good job in providing the best services to families who need it and can't afford private day care like myself who would have to give up full time work and go onto benefits.

• I believe every child has a right to be educated properly regardless of financial position. • I have attended the consultation meetings, parents have asked the Council staff to

explain what assurances on quality and affordability there will be for these new providers. I have not been convinced with their answers. I understand that Westminster Council under took similar changes. What can we learn from their experience?

• I pay for childcare (it's expensive and I can't afford it, but I have to do it to stay in work) if you move/merge to private sector childcare costs will increase and will therefore be totally out of my reach. This whole consultation is a complete waste of money. How much did this cost to put together?

• If I understand right, private childcare is very expensive and how will parents working just above or on low income afford this. Private childcare may not be as good as one in Maxilla and I believe this few years in development in children is very important for them.

• If the nursery provision is privatised the costs will go up and women will decide not to return to work. The government will collect less tax from people in the long run, as £75-£80 per day for childcare in the private sector is too expensive for families.

• In principle I understand the need but a few big factors. What is new increased cost? Currently like mix of families versus many private nurseries that weed out mix. Being under Council, find higher sense of accountability versus privatisation. Charging those who can afford is fine to a point as to have families have to subsidise gap of free place might then become cost prohibitive for families.

• It will mean a shortage of places for children plus some families will be able to pay private providers.

• My child experience care in the private sector. We are far happier with the care provided by the Violet Melchett Centre. They are experienced (certificates) versus our experience to the private sector whereby there were fewer certified staff members. Also, the meals at Violet Melchett are much healthier than the private sector where our one year old daughter at the time was often provided with chips and ketchup as a snack. For the prices charged it is difficult to keep a child in the private sector. The focus is profit and not experience in care and general wellbeing of the child.

• No guarantee that quality will be maintained, currently very high. Personally I cannot afford even a small increase of fees. I would have to give up my part time work. I am a single mother and about 70 to 80 per cent of wage goes to childcare costs already.



Private provider would most likely need to increase fees a lot not to go bust or save on quality and kids will not benefit from this.

• Only concerned if this means that childcare would become even more unaffordable than it is already. What are the figures/costs of private?

• People wouldn't be able to pay for private care. • Prices will only inflate even more. • Private care is extremely expensive and for parents who work full time and wish for their

child to be in a nursery setting it's too much. Not all families are two parent homes and an increase in childcare would be taking food from the child's mouths as parents wouldn't be able to work.

• Private care is poor - staff are badly paid and this reflects in standards. If the Council cares about standards - don't do this! Private care is a business to make money. What you have on offer is the best daycare. Why not means test now? Why do we have to privatise this?

• Private nurseries charge very high fees that my family can't afford. We want to keep using Council nursery, have been happy there and will be priced out.

• Private would be too expensive and too selective. Voluntary - not certain would provide as much trust in what they do - Council provides excellent service and should continue to do so.


• The current childcare is of excellent quality. It is also the only affordable local option for many families. Privately run daycare could lead to mothers not being able to return to work as they cannot afford the fees. It could also lead to a deterioration in quality as only two qualified members of staff are required to be on site, compared to the current situation of all the front line staff being fully qualified.

• The families most in need would suffer and parents who cannot afford private childcare would be forced to stay home rather than work.

• The fees may be unaffordable for working parents who are already struggling to pay fees. I am guessing parents who are middle income earners will be the most affected as there is no statutory support for the top up of nursery fees.

• The increased costs will leave me in financial hardship • The likelihood is that fees will have to rise which are high enough for many families who

are not deemed to be 'in need’ but are! Also will these centres start closing to most families in school holidays and only be open to those on the pilot scheme which is the case in Westminster? This will only forced many already hard up families out of work as has happened to others in neighbouring boroughs already!

• The nursery fees will double up, therefore many mothers, including me, wouldn't be able to go to work. You have to have or be a professional to earn more than £100 a day to justify the nursery fees.

• There is already very limited affordable childcare in the borough. Eventually these companies can increase the rates and it may be hard for the Council to ensure that the places are going to the poorest families, i.e. single parents on income support who receive no financial support from the other parent.



• There is not enough affordable day care. Private organisations are there to make profits, staffing and standards do not match current childcare. Council day care shows families all round support, I have experienced both and would have to give up work if daycare changed.

• We are in an economic recession, businesses are struggling to financially keep afloat. Private companies in order to operate would have to considerably increase fees and reduce standards. Private companies do not have the expertise to monitor and support children in need. The current government recognises early intervention works with families and saves thousands from other services that would have been provided in the future.

• We might not be able to pay for our children's day care if it goes to the private sector. Therefore, I, as a mother would most probably have to quit my job to take care of them.

• When nurseries become privatised they focus on making money more than the child's needs. Also, resources will be limited due to wanting to spend less money and make profit.

• Working families will suffer. Those on low incomes like myself will have to pay for services as we earn just about the amount where we would qualify for help. Having part time places would also affect the quality of education and experience for the children. It would be less consistent. Parents will not feel confident with the new model a 'hub' outside of your own children's centre will make decision making and services worse and more inaccessible.

• You say you want to get parents back to work but going ahead with this proposal would cause more parents to give up work. We want affordable day care, quality day care, existing staff - continuity. A Council answerable service, not a company trying to make money - what about school readiness?

• Because of lack of information provided, which makes me feel that I don't have the confidence in the new arrangements, it may include an increase in fees and it may affect the quality of services.

• However the pricing would need to be kept in line with what low income/middle income families can afford as many private companies are extortionate.

• I am a mother who wants to go back in to full time work, my son is on three of the waiting lists for a full time place at the Council daycare centres, and I am told that due to demand the waiting list is running about a two year wait (this in itself is outrageous). The cost of sending him to a private nursery is not an option as it would take all of my additional salary after the mortgage and bills are paid so financially it would not make sense for me to go back to work. I have worked very hard to get the job that I currently have and going back when he goes to school would mean that I have to retrain and I would have lost contacts etc. Nannies are cheaper but the ones I could afford are not Ofsted registered, and often English is a second language. This leads to him starting school with potential speech and language problems. Also there isn't the social development that you get from nursery, no matter how many play groups you go to. I know many mothers in the borough who have had to give up their careers because the cost of nursery education in the borough is prohibitive, and financially they can't afford to go back. There needs to be more affordable nursery education available in the borough not less. We are one of the best boroughs in the country, we need to have the services to match!

• I do not feel you would get value for money. Private providers are more expensive child carers, have less qualifications and are focused on making money rather than providing a quality service. Staff are usually under paid while service users are paying high rates for care provision.



• I have a three year old and one year old twins there would be no way I could make it viable financially for me to go back to work should the fees go up. But more importantly for the future children of the borough, this service should be maintained and celebrated for the outstanding wonderful service (or home from home in my case) that it is. Again I am concerned about the current staff's jobs, the level of training/qualification of future staff the numbers of children that could be squeezed into each site.

• Private providers would mean that most vulnerable can't afford it consequently the children would be stuck in front of TV eating crisps, becoming the next generation of brain washed sofa potatoes costing a fortune to the NHS. Where would be the economy? Voluntary sector...yes, but there would be no checking of who is doing what and how and again what's the benefit to the children if they are left in the hands of incompetent or even harmful influence (paedophiles making it through)

• That would be extra charges if you are taking someone privately and pay big commissions. It's like the NHS they take staff from agencies when they are short paying high commissions and their staff who are employed get minimum wage. Is that fair? If you take someone to volunteer, would you get good care from someone that doesn't get paid, I don't think so.

Involvement


Learn from other Councils

• I have attended the consultation meetings, parents have asked the Council staff to explain what assurances on quality and affordability there will be for these new providers. I have not been convinced with their answers. I understand that Westminster Council under took similar changes. What can we learn from their experience?

Leave as is

• Because it works already as it is and keeps the centres community based. • I like the present model. • The Council is already delivering a very effective service. • The Council should continue to provide full daycare within the four centres to ensure that

these services are properly managed. • Things are fine how they are! • This one thing which is done well. Please don't change it! • You the Council have worked hard to get it right and it is, all kids with problems, or not,

need children’s centres to make sure they grow into good citizens, why change it when it has been so successful?

• I like things exactly as they are.



• The provision of childcare is provided currently in the best format. There is the need for publically provided childcare as well as private to give choice to parents and also to make sure that no child is left behind.

Less places for the disadvantaged


Links to other services • Lack of integration with other services (e.g. health), easy for families to 'slip through the

net'. • As parents, we need to know that our children are in safe hands and settled when they

are away from us. I much prefer knowing that my child is being looked after by the same staff throughout the day, whom she knows, trusts and is comfortable with. Also, myself and many other parents are not comfortable with our children having to 'cross over' to a different centre. We would rather be able to get the full childcare under one roof, so we don't have to worry about our kids crossing roads and walking in bad weather conditions, etc.

• Because it is very important that the same people who run the centres are also connected to the nursery. It makes it easier for the children and for parents when they start nursery. At the moment the childcare is in very high quality and we want it to stay this way. Nursery is very important for child development and nurseries in Kensington and Chelsea are doing great job. For the long term it is not good to make this save.

Means testing


• Why not try and charge different bands now rather than privatise. Why change an outstanding service when increased money is being spent on trips. Please tell me how many people wanted this? Daycare is an essential service, not trips or free swimming.

More information





Part time care

• How can we go back to work with part time care, this is a joke. • Because that would mean childcare wouldn't go full time to nurseries and won't help

people who are in employment. Positive comments about current arrangements

• I believe leaving existing service is very critical for me as a parent and as a resident and I am sure this will be difficult for many parents to go back to work and study. The existing service is fantastic the way it's managed and run, I believe as resident of Kensington and Chelsea we have the best children's centre compared to many boroughs, this is very encouraging for parents to be active and find work.

Prefer voluntary sector

• Because private sector are profit-oriented, their primary objective is maximising profit rather than 'value for money'. Infant voluntary sectors are preferable but it may be difficult to find one which can provide a service at a large scale.

Quality

• Because the Council has been successful in offering exemplary provision that really works. As the DFE's early year's evidence pack shows clearly the most successful provision depends on long duration of high quality staff. Why take the risk that providers who have motive to cut quality, would the Council outsource a successful primary school? The proposal suggests strongly that early year's provision is neither understood, nor valued.

• Childcare services to be managed by private providers will completely destroy the quality of the services plus the cost will not be affordable for many working families with low income. I can predict what will happen in the future. I personally believe that the Council has already made up its mind to hand in the childcare services to private sector. The cost will go up, so many working family will not be able to pay and will stop using the services. The centres will be left for few who can afford to pay and obviously it will be difficult for the private sector to run the service with few families using the service. Finally the private providers will convert the centres to something else where they can make money.

• Council childcare is affordable, safe, clean and of excellent standards. Private is expensive, not as good and has poorly trained staff/paid staff. Childcare was the only option for me and has increased me being able to leave my home, helped my child and enabled me to have better health. Keep daycare Council funded!

• Council offers good to outstanding services. On the one occasion a day excursion was provided by a private company it fell on its face and the trip couldn't go ahead.

• Fees will go up, services will degrade, staff will be cut (bad for our kids). • Golborne Children's Centre has recently been awarded outstanding status in its Ofsted

report. Much more information would be needed to ensure that a private nursery or charity would have the same level of expertise that Golborne Children's Centre currently provides in helping them to prepare for primary school, keeping them safe and letting kids from all kinds of backgrounds play and learn together.



• Golborne Children's Centre is an outstanding childcare provider, making it private will lower standards and raise costs for hardworking parents. Private childcare in Kensington and Chelsea is the most expensive in the country - normal hardworking parents will not be able to afford private daycare. Providers like Golborne are like gold dust and enable low paid parents like me to stay employed.

• Highly trained, experienced and well-paid staff equals outstanding provision. Moving to the private, voluntary or independent sector will inevitably lead to a reduction in staff qualified at the highest levels, reduced salaries and employment terms and conditions in the long term, and consequently a reduction in the quality of the provision.


• I don't trust private or voluntary service provider with care of my children. In my experience private or voluntary providers focus on profit/underpaid staff, cost cutting rather than wellbeing of my children.

• I feel the Council are not listening to residents and parents. We need more quality, affordable daycare, run by the Council - not less or privatised care. This is the worst possible option. Please reconsider.

• I have attended the consultation meetings, parents have asked the Council staff to explain what assurances on quality and affordability there will be for these new providers. I have not been convinced with their answers. I understand that Westminster Council undertook similar changes. What can we learn from their experience?

• I have experiences both with my child attending both private and Council. The Council nurseries vastly surpass the private. There is a greater mixture of children and the curriculum is totally appropriate. Also parents are much more involved.

• It would need to be that the quality of the provision remains the same. The Golborne Children's Centre has just received the highest Ofsted inspection report across the entire centres. What measures will the Council put in place to ensure that the new provider maintains this level of provision?

• I would worry about the quality of childcare if another company were to come in and provide. I worry that currently the workforce are good and identifying and supporting those in most need and this may fail if another provider came in.



• If I understand right, private childcare is very expensive and how will parents working just above or on low income afford this. Private childcare may not be as good as one in Maxilla and I believe this few years in development in children is very important for them.

• My child experienced care in the private sector. We are far happier with the care provided by the Violet Melchett Centre. They are experienced (certificates) versus our experience to the private sector whereby there were fewer certified staff members. Also, the meals at Violet Melchett are much healthier than the private sector where our one year old daughter at the time was often provided with chips and ketchup as a snack. For the prices charged it is difficult to keep a child in the private sector. The focus is profit and not experience in care and general wellbeing of the child.

• No guarantee that quality will be maintained, currently very high. Personally I cannot afford even a small increase of fees. I would have to give up my part time work. I am a single mother and about 70 to 80 per cent of wage goes to childcare costs already. Private provider would most likely need to increase fees a lot not to go bust or save on quality and kids will not benefit from this.


• Private childcare is not good. • Private daycare does not compare with the current daycare provided by the Council. Why

can't you save money by reducing courses and keeping the one service that really works? If you have to increase fees for some, why can't you the Council do that? Not privatise, equalling a service that no one wants, poor childcare with increased fees. I've tried both, they don't compare.

• Private sector always bad idea when it comes to delivering a health service. Profit would most likely come before everything else. Not entirely comfortable about leaving a child with inexperienced volunteers either. Also hope those 'volunteers' aren't in fact coerced to take these jobs by the jobcentre or something. Will never trust the care of my child to a volunteer.

• Private sector is there to make profit, not to look after our children’s important education. I am very happy with how it is in the moment.

• Private would be too expensive and too selective. Voluntary - not certain would provide as much trust in what they do - Council provides excellent service and should continue to do so.

• Privatisation will lead to a volume driven approach at the expense of the high level of care/quality care provided currently. It will certainly erode access to services for those families in need.

• Standards would not be as high. Council run nurseries much better. Children in Need places would not be priority after privatisation became established.


• The current childcare is of excellent quality. It is also the only affordable local option for many families. Privately run daycare could lead to mothers not being able to return to work as they cannot afford the fees. It could also lead to a deterioration in quality as only



two qualified members of staff are required to be on site, compared to the current situation of all the front line staff being fully qualified.

• The quality of service in my experience would change and not for the better. Ninety per cent of the staff at Violet Melchett have a full degree or working towards one. I am worried that the level of childcare knowledge would slip.

• The service that currently exists is far better than the private, voluntary or independent company. I have tried both and am completely against this proposal. There are other ways of saving money or increasing income but are the Council willing to look at them?

• There is no information provided to suggest how the quality of services would be assessed and maintained within this commissioning setup. Overall it is the responsibility of the Council to provide and maintain quality services for childcare and this may not be the priority for an external provider. Golborne Children's Centre offers an outstanding level of quality educational services to its children and there is no indication in the vague information supplied that this would be maintained in the new setup. Children at Golborne are from a wide range of backgrounds and they get a great educational preparation for school in a safe environment. My daughter loves going there and never wants to come home, she loves the staff and has made great developmental progress while there.

• There is not enough affordable day care. Private organisations are there to make profits, staffing and standards do not match current childcare. Council day care shows families all round support; I have experienced both and would have to give up work if daycare changed.

• We are in an economic recession, businesses are struggling to financially keep afloat. Private companies in order to operate would have to considerably increase fees and reduce standards. Private companies do not have the expertise to monitor and support children in need. The current government recognises early intervention works with families and saves thousands from other services that would have been provided in the future.

• We previously had our child in private sector nursery. It was not as good, personnel were less experienced and qualified. The food was a disgrace. Violet Melchett is far better, concentrates on child needs and development and healthy eating.

• When organisations turn from Council to profit the emphasis changes therefore children's needs suffer.

• Who can say that private or voluntary sectors will keep things as they are. • You say you want to get parents back to work but going ahead with this proposal would

cause more parents to give up work. We want affordable day care, quality day care, existing staff - continuity. A Council answerable service, not a company trying to make money - what about school readiness?

• Also if we do not get the child's learning, social skills and support them to reach their full potential at this crucial early stage of development how can they grow up to be caring responsible adults.

• Because it is very important that the same people who run the centres are also connected to the nursery. It makes it easier for the children and for parents when they start nursery. At the moment the childcare is in very high quality and we want it to stay this way. Nursery is very important for child development and nurseries in Kensington and Chelsea are doing great job. For the long term it is not good to make this saving.




• Day care provision in Chelsea Open Air children's Centre is of high quality due to the strong leadership and the qualified staff. The centre provides a very (excellent) good early years and deserves to be preserved. Private provision will be profit orientated and hence not to give a good high standard, early years all rounded education.

• I am a mother who wants to go back in to full time work, my son is on three of the waiting lists for a full time place at the Council daycare centres, and I am told that due to demand the waiting list is running about a two year wait (this in itself is outrageous). The cost of sending him to a private nursery is not an option as it would take all of my additional salary after the mortgage and bills are paid so financially it would not make sense for me to go back to work. I have worked very hard to get the job that I currently have and going back when he goes to school would mean that I have to retrain and I would have lost contacts etc. Nannies are cheaper but the ones I could afford are not Ofsted registered, and often English is a second language. This leads to him starting school with potential speech and language problems. Also there isn't the social development that you get from nursery, no matter how many play groups you go to. I know many mothers in the borough who have had to give up their careers because the cost of nursery education in the borough is prohibitive, and financially they can't afford to go back. There needs to be more affordable nursery education available in the borough not less. We are one of the best boroughs in the country, we need to have the services to match!


• I fear it is a way of scaling down the service to save money but I doubt it will serve the children.

• It wouldn't be as personal and welcoming. It would be in risk of being about making money rather than saving money. Ultimately the children's needs would come second. Also disadvantaged families would be disregarded.

• Loss of Quality. Loss of continuity. Higher costs to users. Private providers have consistently failed in other public sector areas - don't risk children's education.

• Reduce other parts of the Council, e.g. the Early Year's Team which is huge and does little for its costs. Experience of working in a school with private and voluntary partners was previously not positive. What standards would be in place? Young children need to be cared for locally not dragged across boroughs.

• The education/care of pre-school children is not to be left to untrained and lowly paid staff, who would inevitably be provided by organisations that focus on return to shareholders rather than the welfare of children.

• The service might be degraded • I believe that this cost effective service is seen as more important than the quality of

service my children get. Reliability

• Because voluntary sector/private might not be as reliable as the Council has been over the years.

Save money in other ways

• Parents have to work longer hours. So it makes sense for nurseries and schools to be open or offer full time childcare. The demand for this is very high. Children are the future



and money should not be cut from young people services/children's services as it affects our future too. Money can be taken from other places.

• Private daycare does not compare with the current daycare provided by the Council. Why can't you save money by reducing courses and keeping the one service that really works? If you have to increase fees for some, why can't you the Council do that? Not privatise, equalling a service that no one wants, poor childcare with increased fees. I've tried both, they don't compare.

• The proposal is not saving money in the first place. To save money you do not need to privatise. You need to change the way things are now.

• The service that currently exists is far better than the private, voluntary or independent company. I have tried both and am completely against this proposal. There are other ways of saving money or increasing income but are the Council willing to look at them?

• Why not try and charge different bands now rather than privatise. Why change an outstanding service when increased money is being spent on trips. Please tell me how many people wanted this? Daycare is an essential service, not trips or free swimming.

• Why not use the excellent spaces that are here already. Some parents pay for this and it seems well organised. Reorganising or redistributing may not save the Council money and may create more bureaucracy and less community.

• Reduce other parts of the Council, e.g. the Early Year's Team which is huge and does little for its costs. Experience of working in a school with private and voluntary partners was previously not positive. What standards would be in place? Young children need to be cared for locally not dragged across boroughs.

School holidays

• The likelihood is that fees will have to rise which are high enough for many families who are not deemed to be 'in need’ but are! Also will these centres start closing to most families in school holidays and only be open to those on the pilot scheme which is the case in Westminster? This will only forced many already hard up families out of work as has happened to others in neighbouring boroughs already!

Shortage of places

• It will mean a shortage of places for children plus some families will be able to pay private providers.

Staff continuity/quality

• Because of costs and change in staff, in the way things are run. • Bringing private or voluntary sector into the Council centres would be a bad idea. They

will have different ways of doing things and would probably be more expensive. At the moment the way the centres are run and the people who work here are good and at their jobs and can be trusted, I think changing this will affect the way the centres are perceived and I wouldn't want my daughter to continue attending it.


• Council childcare is affordable, safe, clean and of excellent standards. Private is expensive, not as good and has poorly trained staff/paid staff. Childcare was the only



option for me and has increased me being able to leave my home, helped my child and enabled me to have better health. Keep daycare Council funded!

• Fees will go up, services will degrade, staff will be cut (bad for our kids). • Highly trained, experienced and well-paid staff equals outstanding provision. Moving to

the private, voluntary or independent sector will inevitably lead to a reduction in staff qualified at the highest levels, reduced salaries and employment terms and conditions in the long term, and consequently a reduction in the quality of the provision.


• I don't trust private or voluntary service provider with care of my children. In my experience private or voluntary providers focus on profit/underpaid staff, cost cutting rather than wellbeing of my children.

• I feel children's centres main client is the child, have the child's needs as their main priority. Children's centres also pride themselves in having good quality staff. The turnaround of staff in children's centres seems to be lower than private and voluntary, that is most likely down to job satisfaction.

• I would worry about the quality of childcare if another company were to come in and provide. I worry that currently the workforce are good and identifying and supporting those in most need and this may fail if another provider came in.

• It is by far the best way to ensure safeguarding of children, and to ensure quality of staff. • My child experience care in the private sector. We are far happier with the care provided

by the Violet Melchett Centre. They are experienced (certificates) versus our experience to the private sector whereby there were fewer certified staff members. Also, the meals at Violet Melchett are much healthier than the private sector where our one year old daughter at the time was often provided with chips and ketchup as a snack. For the prices charged it is difficult to keep a child in the private sector. The focus is profit and not experience in care and general wellbeing of the child.


• Suggesting a private provider is the best option to look after the children in need is an aberration - you have to stick to public services. Plus childcare should be as inclusive as



possible, and your model will lead to more segregation. On top of this, you have staff that are doing great work in a public setting and you will destroy all of their work. Going rates in the private sectors are shameful and will drive more mothers out of work, who are skilled and will claim benefits instead!

• The current childcare is of excellent quality. It is also the only affordable local option for many families. Privately run daycare could lead to mothers not being able to return to work as they cannot afford the fees. It could also lead to a deterioration in quality as only two qualified members of staff are required to be on site, compared to the current situation of all the front line staff being fully qualified.

• The quality of service in my experience would change and not for the better. Ninety per cent of the staff at Violet Melchett have a full degree or working towards one. I am worried that the level of childcare knowledge would slip.

• There is not enough affordable day care. Private organisations are there to make profits, staffing and standards do not match current childcare. Council day care shows families all round support, I have experienced both and would have to give up work if daycare changed.

• We previously had our child in private sector nursery. It was not as good, personnel were less experienced and qualified. The food was a disgrace. Violet Melchett is far better, concentrates on child’s needs and development and healthy eating.

• As parents, we need to know that our children are in safe hands and settled when they are away from us. I much prefer knowing that my child is being looked after by the same staff throughout the day, whom she knows, trusts and is comfortable with. Also, myself and many other parents are not comfortable with our children having to 'cross over' to a different centre. We would rather be able to get the full childcare under one roof, so we don't have to worry about our kids crossing roads and walking in bad weather conditions, etc.

• Because it is very important that the same people who run the centres are also connected to the nursery. It makes it easier for the children and for parents when they start nursery. At the moment the childcare is very high quality and we want it to stay this way. Nursery is very important for child development and nurseries in Kensington and Chelsea are doing great job. For the long term it is not good to make this saving.


• I have a three year old and one year old twins there would be no way I could make it viable financially for me to go back to work should the fees go up. But more importantly for the future children of the borough, this service should be maintained and celebrated for the outstanding wonderful service (or home from home in my case) that it is. Again I am concerned about the current staff's jobs, the level of training/qualification of future staff the numbers of children that could be squeezed into each site.

• Loss of quality. Loss of continuity. Higher costs to users. Private providers have consistently failed in other public sector areas - don't risk children's education.

Waiting lists

• I am a mother who wants to go back in to full time work, my son is on three of the waiting lists for a full time place at the Council daycare centres, and I am told that due to demand the waiting list is running about a two year wait (this in itself is outrageous). The cost of sending him to a private nursery is not an option as it would take all of my additional



salary after the mortgage and bills are paid so financially it would not make sense for me to go back to work. I have worked very hard to get the job that I currently have and going back when he goes to school would mean that I have to retrain and I would have lost contacts etc. Nannies are cheaper but the ones I could afford are not Ofsted registered, and often English is a second language. This leads to him starting school with potential speech and language problems. Also there isn't the social development that you get from nursery, no matter how many play groups you go to. I know many mothers in the borough who have had to give up their careers because the cost of nursery education in the borough is prohibitive, and financially they can't afford to go back. There needs to be more affordable nursery education available in the borough not less. We are one of the best boroughs in the country, we need to have the services to match!

Will cost more in long run

• Will end up being more expensive - outsourcing invariably is. ‘Do you have any other comments about our proposals?’ Against the proposals

• I am strongly against these proposals as are all the parents I meet. The community doesn't want the changes and it goes against government policy regarding community. You will end up spending more in the future on the community.

• Money saving leaves children without. • Please do not offer the service to the private sector. My son used to attend a private

nursery and the level of care and education was appalling. • This new model is unfair! • Don't like your proposals at all. This country is going down in everything. • Please do not go ahead and privatise the provision of child health care. • We understand that cuts have to be made however be careful not to aim at the wrong

target. The children are the citizens of tomorrow, the tax payers of tomorrow. If all your good plans of cutting costs are going to fail then it's not with a generation of disorientated and intoxicated grownups that you are going to fill up the war chests to pay for the services of the children of tomorrow. Think!

• When you have already made so many redundancies, why do you propose this move? I know you have the funds and you should utilise them.

Better run

• The going rate as mentioned above would depend on the good management of nursery. It could be better run and not privatised - therefore rates could be lower than some private nurseries.

Close some centres

• Do we need eight centres? Keep the ones in schools because they really improve children's education. Lot of research shows the value of nursery schools and they give the best free quality.



Consultation • I think that the leaflets and information provided to us has been too vague and I think that

the questions in this survey are also too vague and at times leading in the way that they are phrased (as well as the answers options). It is unfair to ask us to give you opinions if are not given enough information to do so. I also think it is really important for the Council to offer high quality childcare educational services at an affordable cost. Finally I think it is also unfair to do such an important review of services and expect us to consider the information and respond during the summer holidays when it is harder for parents to have the time to do so.

• I think the proposals are too high level and not enough detail has been provided to say anything more than it sounds like a gamble. Need to cut costs seems to be leading to the easiest option - pass the problem to somebody else. Experience with outsourcing shows that the most obvious results are either a degradation of quality or bankruptcy for the new provider if they didn't do their numbers properly. Apart from that, there are plenty of areas that cause me concern about the consultation process that I haven't mentioned before, like for example: - Question 14 states that 'the Council will no longer be able to subsidise every childcare place'. Is that the case in the present? It would have been useful to know what the cost of each childcare space is and compare against the cost paid. One of the proposed answers states 'Those that can afford to pay should be charged the going rate': I'm not sure what the 'going rate' actually means? How does that compare vs. what parents currently pay? Are there people that pay that rate? Have you considered approaching parents and asking if they could pay that rate? Producing a certain outcome: the questionnaire is far from neutral and is highly likely to produce certain data. It is grossly unfair that residents have been asked questions that are not open and neutral. There are questions that propose changes that seem self-evident - like? Simplify management and reduce these costs and protect the front line? Then asks 'are you in favour of this model'. This is a misleading question- how likely is that people will say no to reducing costs and simplifying management. There is no alternative proposals mentioned nor do you refer to the risks to the proposals. Legally the consultation process should be fair and ensure that those consulted can make informed decisions. This questionnaire meets neither of these legal requirements. It is also very disheartening as a parent to read questions that clearly are designed to produce a certain outcome. I have to say that is a shame that under a government that came to power claiming to embrace the big society, the first changes affecting those that we should care for the most - children, our future - have been designed without any involvement of the key stakeholders. I would have happily volunteered my team to work on a solution to the funding gap. Instead, I have to limit myself to answer a poorly designed questionnaire.

• The timing of this consultation stinks. The majority of families are not engaging with children’s centres during the months of July and August. Was the Council trying to reduce the number of families responding to this? The paper is also very confusing. Doesn't Golborne Children’s Centre (2A Bevington Rd) get included in this? I don’t think of Holmfield House as Golborne Children's Centre. Perhaps the sign at the door to Holmfield House needs to reflect this first before putting it in a consultation paper and expect parents to not be confused by this.

• Will this consultation really listen to what we want? Will other options be considered? Will money stop being wasted on non essential courses and used on what parents’ needs Council run/Council accountable daycare?

• Will you truly listen to our voice? Does this make a difference? Will you keep the day care if the majority voice this is what they want?



• Q14 is very poorly constructed. As someone who was a market researcher in my professional life and a as a member of BPS I am appalled by the nature of the question. It is sloppy at best and disingenuous at worst.

• Why is the consultation been carried out in the summer? What's happening to the full time places.

Courses - savings

• Your childcare is outstanding, surely you don't need to sell this off in order to make it cheaper. Cut back on useless courses and free nonsense.

Definitions - 'those that can afford to pay', 'going rate', 'disadvantaged'

• How do you calculate 'those who can afford' and what 'the going rate is'? Most people on even £30,000 a year can't afford full time childcare. So how do you penalise the lower - middle classes where there will be a generation of women unable to work because although they earn 'good' wages, they still can't afford childcare.

• How do you work out who can afford to pay and how much is the going rate? What is low income? Does it take into account large families and how affordable this is?

• We need to make sure who are the most disadvantaged children and families who are really in need of help, because right now I know a lot of families who abuse the system and they get their way to profit from it and those who are really in need get nothing.

• When you say people that can afford to pay, do you mean wealthy people not average earnings people? If people just barely make it, I think they will choose not to pay their last funds and a lot of kids will miss out. I would keep my child at home until a free place is offered.

• I think the proposals are too high level and not enough detail has been provided to say anything more than it sounds like a gamble. Need to cut costs seems to be leading to the easiest option - pass the problem to somebody else. Experience with outsourcing shows that the most obvious results are either a degradation of quality or bankruptcy for the new provider if they didn't do their numbers properly. Apart from that, there are plenty of areas that cause me concern about the consultation process that I haven't mentioned before, like for example: - Question 14 states that 'the Council will no longer be able to subsidise every childcare place'. Is that the case in the present? It would have been useful to know what the cost of each childcare space is and compare against the cost paid. One of the proposed answers states 'Those that can afford to pay should be charged the going rate': I'm not sure what the 'going rate' actually means? How does that compare vs. what parents currently pay? Are there people that pay that rate? Have you considered approaching parents and asking if they could pay that rate? Producing a certain outcome: the questionnaire is far from neutral and is highly likely to produce certain data. It is grossly unfair that residents have been asked questions that are not open and neutral. There are questions that propose changes that seem self-evident - like? Simplify management and reduce these costs and protect the front line? Then asks 'are you in favour of this model'. This is a misleading question- how likely is that people will say no to reducing costs and simplifying management. There is no alternative proposals mentioned nor do you refer to the risks to the proposals. Legally the consultation process should be fair and ensure that those consulted can make informed decisions. This questionnaire meets neither of these legal requirements. It is also very disheartening as a parent to read questions that clearly are designed to produce a certain outcome. I have to say that is a shame that under a government that came to power claiming to embrace the big



society, the first changes affecting those that we should care for the most - children, our future - have been designed without any involvement of the key stakeholders. I would have happily volunteered my team to work on a solution to the funding gap. Instead, I have to limit myself to answer a poorly designed questionnaire.

• I would like to know how the Council will assess parents being able to afford 'the going rate', what is the going rate? The borough is at risk of creating more disadvantaged families unable to sustain employment and in turn needing free childcare places. Working parents using children centres for childcare like myself do so because we cannot afford private nursery fees, some which are as high as £325 per week. Most work to pay childcare and struggle. Why isn't something being done to help disadvantaged parents using fully subsidised places become financially independent? How are parents supported whilst their children are cared for? There needs to be balance of views, I feel it’s a little one sided given the information presented.

• It is very difficult to gauge who can afford to pay. It could also lead to vulnerable children from higher income families missing out on high quality day care.

• People that can afford do pay. It will only start to cost as you would have to do more paperwork working it out.

• What about the parents that are one point above the low income. If you choose for families to pay for childcare, the low income should be much higher than in the moment.

• How are parents assessed as to if they can afford to be charged? How much will the charge be? For example if you state parents earning over £20,000 per annum will have to pay how do you know their other outgoings? Not everyone who doesn't claim benefits can afford childcare.

• Paying for services for families with high income - depends what the going rate is. Hopefully charging will not deter families from bringing kids to playgroups. It would be a shame to not have kids of all backgrounds play and mix in the same environment.

• Related to question 5: It is reasonable to charge for some services, where people can afford to pay: Depends how much. Related to question 14: Support should be offered to low income working families: what support is it? It's not clear. / Those that can afford to pay should be charged the going rate: depends what charge would be charged. I believe that nursery full time in Kensington and Chelsea is very important and that is great that we have that. We do appreciate it and we would be very disappointed if the level of nurseries and children's centre change to worse. I think that there are more less important things where the save should be made and not in the most important thing - the education.

• Support should be offered to low income working families: support in the sense of free childcare places as well as guidance and advice! In regards to question 14, I feel that it would be very difficult to assess whether it would be fair to charge the going rate to a family considered to be 'better off'. In my experience, families who earn more, often have more financial commitments and should not be expected to reduce their quality of living because of high childcare costs. I also believe this would lead to social tension amongst parents of different social /financial classes, which would negatively affect the children and their future.

Diversity

• If the Council supports a fully inclusive approach to children's centres charging the going rate will reduce the diversity of users. Those who can 'afford' to pay have already contributed via direct taxation on income and should be offered the same opportunities as those families who receive support from the state. Inclusivity is a benefit to all.



• If you don't have a mix of families aspirations decline. If you don't have the high quality staff, standards decline. What guarantee is there of quality in learning and play for young children?

Engage stakeholders

• Again with all these proposals it is hoped that full discussions at every level with those concerned at all levels have been gone through.

Free places to the disadvantaged

• [Re: Free places to most disadvantaged] Not always, surely we should be trying to help in other ways not just giving the parents a break.

• While you say free places should continue to the most 'disadvantaged'. You perhaps need to think about support to help them get back to work rather than taking services from those that do work. Children's centres should offer free places to all or part time place and top up fees to all. The same rules should apply to all families. You say in your proposal that the borough has a 'complex set of management arrangements' for children's centres. This is not the experience of myself as a parent. I find the management friendly, accessible and easy to understand. I like the fact I can speak with different managers on site under the new system this would change.

• With the childcare places, I get very upset. I am a single working mum and pay the full going rate; I am only a cashier and work part time and struggle with money, but other "disadvantaged" families get free places when they sit at home! I believe there should be childcare places available that everyone pays for but overall cheaper.

Increase in fees/impact of fee increases

• Already increased the daily rate from £41 to £56. Huge jump and expense even to middle class family.

• How do you calculate 'those who can afford' and what 'the going rate is'? Most people on even £30,000 a year can't afford full time childcare. So how do you penalise the lower - middle classes where there will be a generation of women unable to work because although they earn 'good' wages, they still can't afford childcare.

• I am a working mum with my son attending nursery. Although on paper it may look like I am getting a good salary I struggle and would be better off on benefits. Therefore I need nursery places to be subsidised.

• I have worked and lived in the borough for over 20 years. It would be a shame that now when times are difficult I could not afford childcare in the borough despite being in work. If I had to give up my work to look after my child I would have to start living on benefits which I try to avoid.

• If cuts need to be made look to other departments besides childcare. I have two young children and am paying £1,500 a month in nursery fees. There is no sibling discount. By the time we pay for this, rent, food and gas/electricity we have no money left over. An increase will mean we won't be able to afford nursery, I will have to drop out of work, we will have no parents/friends who can mind our children for free. Wealthy people are not using Council nurseries. They use nannies.

• If families are working and on low income then they should be offered a place but if they aren't working then only a maximum of two half days should be provided so they can attend interviews etc. Those that can afford it might not to work at all as it's too expensive. For example if someone earns £2000 net per month, why pay £1,500 for a full time nursery and miss out on your child growing up it's not worth it for £500 net.



• It is intuitive that increasing childcare costs will lead to some people being unable to continue working and lead to poor outcomes and increased interventions required at primary level. What assessments have been made of those costs? If the borough's actions are being driven by central government it should be campaigning against such short-termism. Childcare costs in Kensington and Chelsea are among the highest in London, because property is so expensive. If the borough values its current social mix, it has a responsibility to address market failure in private childcare.

• It is very important that for the community, for most of working low or middle class families, for both parents to work in cities as expensive as London. If we can't have day care at these prices how are we going to be able to go back to work?

• People who can afford to pay don't agree in paying full price, it's not fair. All parents should be treated the same. May think about all children wearing the same clothes.

• The going rate. Private nurseries do not offer value for money. The going rate is far too high. Why can't fees increase slightly and transparently so we can reach a compromise?

• What will be the threshold! Again asking the suggested middle to pick up the slack is unfair. Many people who do not qualify for help are not able to pay the full rate and will be forced out of work - as is already the case! There will be nowhere for the majority in the middle to go to, only the well off or poor will be looked after!

• Childcare is so expensive now, and times are hard. This will affect too many people. Please keep Council run day care, this has more impact on families than any other services.

• Closing daycare or raising the price will push many parents into unemployment. Amongst the parents in Golborne we have police officers, teachers, cleaners, shop workers, secretaries - all people who provide a service who would not be able to afford the artificially high Kensington and Chelsea private nurseries.

• Currently I am paying £932.75 a month. Does it mean it is subsidised? What would be my future payment with the new proposal (going rate)? I personally will take my child out of the childcare service and keep him home with me and obviously giving up my job and I will be claiming benefits. I am already struggling with the current cost and if the price increases I will not be able to afford it. My understanding is that the Council is trying to get rid of the nurseries in the borough. There are many ways of saving money but to give private sector to manage the childcare is not the best way to save money.

• I am very worried about the cost of childcare increasing and the impact this will have on my ability to work/stay in the borough. I am also concerned that a reduced management structure will impact on the quality of service currently provided - which at present is very high. I am worried that the high quality of nursery care provided will be affected by moving to private/voluntary provision.

• I believe it is vitally important for low cost or free childcare to be available at excellent and high achieving children's centres like Golborne Children's Centre. The high standard of nursery provision in Kensington and Chelsea has contributed to the success of the borough's children in primary and secondary schools. I am sure you wish this to continue.

• I have a well paid job and do not receive any benefits, but I would find it difficult to pay much more than the current rate for my two children. Rent, rates and food are also going up. I am barely making the monthly payments. Please don't force me to stop working. Also, the combined care provided by Golborne Children's Centre (daycare and nursery) allows me to drop my young children off at get to work on time. The logistics of getting to different nursery and daycare settings in the mornings with a two and four year old are almost impossible, especially on public transport.



• I think it’s not a good proposal. It's not planned properly or thought out. If it becomes private, most families with more than one child won't be able to afford to work, which means the Council/government will be paying more to fund these families.

• I would like to know how the Council will assess parents being able to afford 'the going rate', what is the going rate? The borough is at risk of creating more disadvantaged families unable to sustain employment and in turn needing free childcare places. Working parents using children centres for childcare like myself do so because we cannot afford private nursery fees, some which are as high as £325 per week. Most work to pay childcare and struggle. Why isn't something being done to help disadvantaged parents using fully subsidised places become financially independent? How are parents supported whilst their children are cared for? There needs to be balance of views, I feel it’s a little one sided given the information presented.

• Living in London is very expensive, even those that earn what looks like a decent wage can struggle hugely.

• With the childcare places, I get very upset. I am a single working mum and pay the full going rate; I am only a cashier and work part time and struggle with money, but other "disadvantaged" families get free places when they sit at home! I believe there should be childcare places available that everyone pays for but overall cheaper.

• For those of us who are in the middle bracket of low income and being able to pay for places are usually put at a disadvantage. I am currently paying half my wages on childcare so I can remain at work. If childcare provision increases I will have no choice then to give up work.

• How are parents assessed as to if they can afford to be charged? How much will the charge be? For example if you state parents earning over £20,000 per annum will have to pay how do you know their other outgoings? Not everyone who doesn't claim benefits can afford childcare.

• Low income families will find it difficult to even consider finding work, because if more pressure is put onto them to pay a higher childcare, this will discourage them to find work.

• Paying for services for families with high income - depends what the going rate is. Hopefully charging will not deter families from bringing kids to playgroups. It would be a shame to not have kids of all backgrounds play and mix in the same environment.

Information on charges

• I believe that looking at the pricing structure and charging a fair transparent price would be fair. The going rate does not mean copying private providers’ prices. Show parents how much the service costs and what needs to increase. This would give parents increased knowledge and choice and the Council would save money.

• Please provide us with the cost of 'unsubsidised' and what you call the 'going' rate. - Provide a calendar of suggested implementation - I find it outrageous and sneaky to 'consult' during this summer, when families are on holiday.

Leaflet

• This leaflet is disgracefully misleading. Nowhere have you highlighted education provision for children. You are misleading people and playing politics with children's lives. Shame on you.

Leave as is

• Keep the centres the way they are now - working well.



• Please do not make any changes. Leave it as it is. Childcare in this country is expensive as it is.

• I don't think anything should change because things are fine how they are! • As we are all in the Royal Borough we need to remain the same • Keep full day childcare run by the Council, and increase the number of primary schools in

the south of the borough. Means testing

• Maybe without privatisation you could means test. This retains the service. I feel the Council should be proud of the outstanding daycare and promote it, not sell it off.

• Why can you not means test now? Charge those who can afford more. Why do you need to privatise to do so?

More childcare

• In this specific area SW3/Chelsea, there is a shortage of nurseries so I think there needs to be more childcare not less.

Other

• I hope all decisions are made with putting the children and their families' needs first. Part time childcare

• I think that making part time childcare - it will make it very difficult for parents that want to work go back to work. My son just started nursery (full time) and I am looking instantly for a job - I am self employed myself. This I could not do if he was part time. I think that free full time places should go to working parents before those not working and don't want to work.

• The services offered by Golborne Children's Centre allowed me to return to work and know that my two children were well cared for. The deciding factor on my return to work was the centre being able to take both of my children, aged two-four. I could not practically get my children to care at two different places and then get myself to work for a 9am start. How are we to manage when the education provision is cut to 15 hours per week? Could the Council allow parents to pay for additional hours in the three-five room - to make up the full time provision? Otherwise, I will not be able to logistically manage getting them to care and me to work.

Places for working families

• Childcare should be offered to working parents that have contributed to the system, i.e. have been working in the UK for at least five years. Working people should not be discriminated against non-working ones. At the moment free childcare is offered to people that do not work (they should not need childcare) and/or have never worked in the UK and do not even speak English. Why are those places offered to people that do not work and in some cases neither of the parents work? Do not offer the service to people that abuse it, they drop their kids off and go for coffee.

• I think that making part time childcare - it will make it very difficult for parents that want to work go back to work. My son just started nursery (full time) and I am looking instantly for a job - I am self employed myself. This I could not do if he was part time. I think that free full time places should go to working parents before those not working and don't want to work.



• If families are working and on low income then they should be offered a place but if they aren't working then only a maximum of two half days should be provided so they can attend interviews etc. Those that can afford it might not work at all as it's too expensive. For example if someone earns £2000 net per month, why pay £1,500 for a full time nursery and miss out on your child growing up it's not worth it for £500 net.

Positive comments about the centres, services or staff

• I rely on your services especially the drop in and enjoy and achieve programme. My mental well being has improved a lot because the classes have given me new skills and confidence and I can't afford childcare so the free crèche gives me a break. I meet new ladies and I feel hopeful.

• Meanwhile Gardens is the best drop in/playgroup. I come every day it's like a home from home. [Named staff] are great with the kids and a testament to the play hut’s popularity.

• Most parents I have spoken to are very impressed with the services provided. I feel it assists in creating a strong and diverse community - establishing strong roots at an early age for young families and particularly for mums or parents who need the support the most when children are very young.

• I would be very sad to see any of the centres go. I have an 11 year old son who went to Violet Melchett and loved it, he still remembers most of the staff and my four year old is at Cheyne which again he loves. The staff are of high standard and the children are happy.

• Chelsea Open Air Children's Centre is an excellent school for early years and also for families it gives a very good support by providing services according to individual needs. This is an outstanding nursery school and children’s centre which has to be preserved.

Prefer to pay more

• I pay substantial tax to the state and borough and would like to see centre open. I would prefer to pay going rate (which is not that different from current, by the way) than see centres being closed.

• The going rate or a fair affordable rate. Why not increase fees slightly then the day care could be self sufficient and there would be no need to sell off.

• The going rate. Private nurseries do not offer value for money. The going rate is far too high. Why can't fees increase slightly and transparently so we can reach a compromise?

• I think the proposals are too high level and not enough detail has been provided to say anything more than it sounds like a gamble. Need to cut costs seems to be leading to the easiest option - pass the problem to somebody else? Experience with outsourcing shows that the most obvious results are either a degradation of quality or bankruptcy for the new provider if they didn't do their numbers properly. Apart from that, there are plenty of areas that cause me concern about the consultation process that I haven't mentioned before, like for example: - Question 14 states that 'the Council will no longer be able to subsidise every childcare place'. Is that the case in the present? It would have been useful to know what the cost of each childcare space is and compare against the cost paid. - One of the proposed answers states 'Those that can afford to pay should be charged the going rate': I'm not sure what the 'going rate' actually means? How does that compare vs. what parents currently pay? Are there people that pay that rate? Have you considered approaching parents and asking if they could pay that rate? - Producing a certain outcome: the questionnaire is far from neutral and is highly likely to produce certain data. It is grossly unfair that residents have been asked questions that are not open and neutral. There are questions that propose changes that seem self-evident -



like? Simplify management and reduce these costs and protect the front line? Then asks 'are you in favour of this model'. This is a misleading question- how likely is that people will say no to reducing costs and simplifying management. There is no alternative proposals mentioned nor do you refer to the risks to the proposals. Legally the consultation process should be fair and ensure that those consulted can make informed decisions. This questionnaire meets neither of these legal requirements. It is also very disheartening as a parent to read questions that clearly are designed to produce a certain outcome. I have to say that is a shame that under a government that came to power claiming to embrace the big society, the first changes affecting those that we should care for the most - children, our future - have been designed without any involvement of the key stakeholders. I would have happily volunteered my team to work on a solution to the funding gap. Instead, I have to limit myself to answer a poorly designed questionnaire.

• I would prefer the fees were put up to cover the savings that have to be made from daycare than privatise the service. I understand one of the neighbouring boroughs tried a similar privatisation scheme some time ago and the nurseries ended up folding and closing, this must not happen again (Westminster, Buffer Bears). Surely staff who have given this service the majority of their working life deserve more. If you did increase the fees would you consider giving a discount on subsequent siblings?

Private sector

• Existing rate in private nurseries is very similar or not that different from rate we pay. Private sector is focussed on profit not wellbeing of my children.

Quality

• I am very worried about the cost of childcare increasing and the impact this will have on my ability to work/stay in the borough. I am also concerned that a reduced Management Structure will impact on the quality of service currently provided - which at present is very high. I am worried that the high quality of nursery care provided will be affected by moving to private/voluntary provision.

• I think the proposals are too high level and not enough detail has been provided to say anything more than it sounds like a gamble. Need to cut costs seems to be leading to the easiest option - pass the problem to somebody else? Experience with outsourcing shows that the most obvious results are either a degradation of quality or bankruptcy for the new provider if they didn't do their numbers properly. Apart from that, there are plenty of areas that cause me concern about the consultation process that I haven't mentioned before, like for example: - Question 14 states that 'the Council will no longer be able to subsidise every childcare place'. Is that the case in the present? It would have been useful to know what the cost of each childcare space is and compare against the cost paid. - One of the proposed answers states 'Those that can afford to pay should be charged the going rate': I'm not sure what the 'going rate' actually means? How does that compare vs. what parents currently pay? Are there people that pay that rate? Have you considered approaching parents and asking if they could pay that rate? - Producing a certain outcome: the questionnaire is far from neutral and is highly likely to produce certain data. It is grossly unfair that residents have been asked questions that are not open and neutral. There are questions that propose changes that seem self-evident - like? Simplify management and reduce these costs and protect the front line? Then asks 'are you in favour of this model'. This is a misleading question- how likely is that people will say no to reducing costs and simplifying management. There is no alternative proposals mentioned nor do you refer to the risks to the proposals. Legally the



consultation process should be fair and ensure that those consulted can make informed decisions. This questionnaire meets neither of these legal requirements. It is also very disheartening as a parent to read questions that clearly are designed to produce a certain outcome. I have to say that is a shame that under a government that came to power claiming to embrace the big society, the first changes affecting those that we should care for the most - children, our future - have been designed without any involvement of the key stakeholders. I would have happily volunteered my team to work on a solution to the funding gap. Instead, I have to limit myself to answer a poorly designed questionnaire.

• Providing quality services remains • If you don't have a mix of families aspirations decline. If you don't have the high quality

staff, standards decline. What guarantee is there of quality in learning and play for young children?

Reasonable rates

• At a reasonable rate Reduction in budget

• The lack of transparency about the financial impact for centres as a result of the proposal means that for many stakeholders completing the questionnaire the implications are unclear. For many centres, a further reduction in their budgets risks their viability and it may be that the Council's stance against closure is not enough to prevent the inevitable, as centres will not be able to function on such a reduced budget.

Save money elsewhere

• If cuts need to be made look to other departments besides childcare. I have two young children and am paying £1,500 a monthly in nursery fees. There is no sibling discount. By the time we pay for this, rent, food and gas/electricity we have no money left over. An increase will mean we won't be able to afford nursery, I will have to drop out of work, we will have no parents/friends who can mind our children for free. Wealthy people are not using Council nurseries. They use nannies.

• Protect childcare to allow parents to keep working. Cut services like garbage collection, street sweeping, parking inspectors and chase down benefit cheats.

Sharing the centre

• Major building works would need to be done to ensure safety for both sides. This may include moving the kitchen to the community room. Also how will we share all the bills for gas/electric/cleaning/maintenance? If one side is local authority and one side private?

Subsidy

• - Why are you subsidising places to those who can afford to pay (you're not helping me!) - Children with severe disabilities should be given free places, if anything to relieve their parents. - People who don't work should not be offered childcare place

• The borough has enough money to subside every place. Think about future

• Before you go ahead with this proposal you have to think about the future of the children. They are the ones who make society better. Thank you for giving us this chance.



Unclear/more information needed • It is not clear to me what subsidised places are - does this mean the 15 hours free? Free

childcare from the government for three to four year olds would be cut? • Very cursory basic information. I, as a parent, need more details on what the Council

intends to do, in order to understand exactly what the possible consequences may be and to work towards solutions.

• I think that the leaflets and information provided to us has been too vague and I think that the questions in this survey are also too vague and at times leading in the way that they are phrased (as well as the answers options). It is unfair to ask us to give you opinions if are not given enough information to do so. I also think it is really important for the Council to offer high quality childcare educational services at an affordable cost. Finally I think it is also unfair to do such an important review of services and expect us to consider the information and respond during the summer holidays when it is harder for parents to have the time to do so.

• I think the proposals are too high level and not enough detail has been provided to say anything more than it sounds like a gamble. Need to cut costs seems to be leading to the easiest option - pass the problem to somebody else? Experience with outsourcing shows that the most obvious results are either a degradation of quality or bankruptcy for the new provider if they didn't do their numbers properly. Apart from that, there are plenty of areas that cause me concern about the consultation process that I haven't mentioned before, like for example: - Question 14 states that 'the Council will no longer be able to subsidise every childcare place'. Is that the case in the present? It would have been useful to know what the cost of each childcare space is and compare against the cost paid. - One of the proposed answers states 'Those that can afford to pay should be charged the going rate': I'm not sure what the 'going rate' actually means? How does that compare vs. what parents currently pay? Are there people that pay that rate? Have you considered approaching parents and asking if they could pay that rate? - Producing a certain outcome: the questionnaire is far from neutral and is highly likely to produce certain data. It is grossly unfair that residents have been asked questions that are not open and neutral. There are questions that propose changes that seem self-evident - like? Simplify management and reduce these costs and protect the front line? Then asks 'are you in favour of this model'. This is a misleading question- how likely is that people will say no to reducing costs and simplifying management. There is no alternative proposals mentioned nor do you refer to the risks to the proposals. Legally the consultation process should be fair and ensure that those consulted can make informed decisions. This questionnaire meets neither of these legal requirements. It is also very disheartening as a parent to read questions that clearly are designed to produce a certain outcome. I have to say that is a shame that under a government that came to power claiming to embrace the big society, the first changes affecting those that we should care for the most - children, our future - have been designed without any involvement of the key stakeholders. I would have happily volunteered my team to work on a solution to the funding gap. Instead, I have to limit myself to answer a poorly designed questionnaire.

• The lack of transparency about the financial impact for centres as a result of the proposal means that for many stakeholders completing the questionnaire the implications are unclear. For many centres, a further reduction in their budgets risks their viability and it may be that the Council's stance against closure is not enough to prevent the inevitable, as centres will not be able to function on such a reduced budget.

• The timing of this consultation stinks. The majority of families are not engaging with Children’s Centres during the months of July and August. Was the Council trying to



reduce the number of families responding to this? The paper is also very confusing. Doesn't Golborne children’s centre (2A Bevington Rd) get included in this? I don’t think of Holmfield House as Golborne Children's Centre. Perhaps the sign at the door to Holmfield House needs to reflect this first before putting it in a consultation paper and expect parents to not be confused by this.

• You don't yet have understandable proposals. I am highly educated and struggling to understand the 'why' and 'how' around your notions - that is all they are. It seems it is all about extracting more money from high and mid earners while simultaneously lowering (or risking) standards of child care and education.

Working parents

• How can the places be offered to those people, is opposite, because those people will be at home so they can look after their kids. But the working parents need this also, to leave their kids. This way, you encourage people not to work and pay them!

children’s centres strategy proposal centres 2012...childminder or nanny, for example: “i am a...

Documents